TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    News

    Flux Podcasts (Formerly Theory of Change)

    Flux is a progressive podcast platform, with daily content from shows like Theory of Change, The Electorette, and Embrace The Void.

    Advertise

    Copyright: © All rights reserved

    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    How Republicans are making the internet a safe space for misinformation Aug 02, 2024
    Show notes

    Episode SummaryLess than five years ago, studying online rumors and misinformation wasn’t a controversial job. It most definitely is now, however, thanks to a powerful group of reactionary politicians and activists who have realized that improving the quality of our political discourse has a negative effect on their electoral chances. We now live in a social media environment in which everything from harmless speculation to flagrant lying isn’t just permissible, it’s encouraged—especially on X, the badly disfigured website formerly known as Twitter.My guest in today’s episode, Renee DiResta, saw all of this happen in real time, not just to the public discourse, but to herself as well after she became the target of a coordinated smear campaign against the work that she and her colleagues at the Stanford Internet Observatory were doing to study and counteract internet falsehoods. That was simply intolerable for Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican congressman who argues that organizations seeking to improve information quality are really a “censorship industrial complex.”Under significant congressional and legal duress, SIO was largely dissolved in June, a significant victory for online propagandists. Beyond their success at effectively censoring a private organization they despised, Jordan and his allies have also intimidated other universities and government agencies that might dare to document and expose online falsehoods.Even if Jordan and his allies had not succeeded against SIO, however, it’s critical to understand that misinformation wouldn’t exist if people did not want to believe it, and that politicized falsehoods were common long before the internet became popular. Understanding the history of propaganda and why it’s effective is the focus of DiResta’s new book, Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality, and it’s the focus of our discussion in this episode.The video of this discussion is available. The transcript of audio is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text.Related Content* Why misinformation works and what to do about it* Renee DiResta’s previous appearance on Theory of Change* How and why Republican elites are re-creating the 1980s “Satanic Panic”* Big Tobacco pioneered the tactics used by social media misinformation creators* Right-wingers depend on disinformation and deception because their beliefs cannot win otherwise* Why people with authoritarian political views think differently from others* How a Christian political blogger inadvertently documented his own radicalization* The economics of disinformation make it profitable and powerfulAudio Chapters0:00 — Introduction03:58 — How small groups of dedicated extremists leverage social media algorithms09:43 — “If you make it trend, you make it true”13:32 — False or misleading information can no longer be quarantined21:31 — Why social influencer culture has merged so well with right-wing media culture26:50 — America never had a '“shared reality” that we can return to30:05 — Reactionaries have figured out that information quality standards are harmful to their factual claims32:22 — Republicans have decided to completely boycott all information quality discussions40:04 — Douglas Mackey and what trolls do43:30 — How Elon Musk and Jim Jordan smeared anti-disinformation researchers51:10 — Conspiracy theories don't have to make sense because the goal is to create doubt53:40 — The desperate need for a “pro-reality” coalition of philanthropists and activists58:30 — Proctor and Gamble, one of the earliest victims of disinformation01:01:00 — The covid lab leak hypothesis and how content moderation can be excessive01:13:07 — JD Vance couch joke illustrates real differences between left and right political ecosystems01:19:26 — Why transparency is essential to information qualityAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.Matthew Sheffield: So, your book and your career has upset a lot of people, I think that’s fair to say. And I guess maybe more your career more recently. So, for people who aren’t familiar with your story, why don’t you maybe just give a little overview?Renee DiResta: So yeah, I guess I’m trying to think of where to start. I spent the last five years until June of this year at the Stanford Internet Observatory. I was the technical research manager there. So [00:03:00] I studied what we call adversarial abuse online. So understanding the abuse of online information ecosystems different types of actors, different types of tactics and strategies, sometimes related to trust and safety, sometimes related to disinformation or influence operations, sometimes related to generative AI or new and emerging technologies.And We treated the internet as a holistic ecosystem. And so, our argument was that as new technologies and new actors and new entrants kind of came into the space you’d see kind of cascading effects across the whole of social media. A lot of the work that I did focused on propaganda and influence and influencers as a sort of linchpin in this particular media environment.And so I recently wrote a book about that.Matthew Sheffield: And you’ve got into all this based on your involvement in being in favor of vaccines.Renee DiResta: Yeah, yeah. I know I got into it by like fighting on the internet, I [00:04:00] guess, back in 2014 no, I was I had my first kid in 2013, my son and I was living in San Francisco.I’d moved out there about two years prior. And you have to do this thing in San Francisco where you put your kid on all these like preschool waiting lists. And not even like fancy preschool, just like any preschool, you’ve got to be on a waiting list. And so I was filling out these forms and I started trying to Google to figure out where the vaccine rates were because at the time there was a whooping cough outbreak in California.And there were all of these articles about how, at the Google daycare vaccination rates were lower than South Sudan’s verbatim. This was one of the headlines. And I thought, I, I don’t want to send my kid to school in that environment. And I want to send him to a place where I’m not risking him catching easily preventable diseases.This is not a crazy preference to have it turns out, but it was on the internet. And so I got really interested in, in that dynamic and how I felt like. My desire to keep my kid safe from preventable diseases [00:05:00] had been a accepted part of the social contract for decades. And all of a sudden I have a baby and I’m on Facebook and Facebook is constantly pushing me anti vaccine content and anti vaccine groups with hundreds of thousands of people in them.So I started joining some of the groups because I was very curious, like what happens in these groups? Why are people so, so compelled to be there. And it was very interesting because it was It was like, it was like a calling, right? They, they weren’t in there because they had some questions about vaccines.They were in there because they were absolutely convinced that vaccines caused autism, caused SIDS, caused allergies, and all of these other, lies, candidly, right? Things that we know not to be true, but they were really evangelists for this. And there was no, Counter evangelism, right? There were parents like me who quietly got our kids vaccinated, nothing happened, and we went on about our days.And then there were people who thought they had a bad experience or who had, distrust in the government, distrust in science. And they were out there constantly putting out content about [00:06:00] how evil vaccines were. And I just felt like there was a real asymmetry there. Fast forward, maybe. A couple months after I started looking at those daycare rates and lists and preschool and there was a measles outbreak at Disneyland.And I thought, Oh my God, measles is back, and measles is back in California in in, in 20, 2014. So that was where I started feeling like, okay we could take legislative steps to improve school vaccination rates and I wanted to be involved. And I met some other very dedicated, mostly women who did as well.And we started this organization called Vaccinate California. And it was really. The mission was this vaccine kind of advocacy, but the learnings were much more broadly applicable, right? It was, how do you grow an audience? How do you add target? How do you take a couple thousand dollars from like friends and family and, Put that to the best possible use to grow a following for your page.How do you get people to want to share your content? What [00:07:00] content is the kind of content you should produce? Like what is influential? What is appealing? And so it was this, kind of building the plane while you’re flying it sort of experience. I was like, Hey, everybody on Twitter is using bots.This is crazy. Do we need bots? All right, I guess we need bots, and and just having this experience and um, 2015 or so is when all this was going down. And we did get this law passed this, this kind of pro vaccine campaign to improve school vaccination rates. It did pass, but I was more struck again by what was possible.And by a feeling of I guess, alarm at some of the things that were possible, right. That you could add target incredibly granularly with absolutely no disclosure of who you were or where your money was coming from that you could run automated accounts to. Just to harass people, right? To kind of constantly barrage or post about them that none of this was in any way certainly wasn’t illegal, but it wasn’t even really like immoral.It was [00:08:00] just. A thing you did on the internet and there were other things around that time, right? Gamergate happened around the same time. Isis grew big on social media around the same time. And so, I just felt like, okay, here’s the future. Every, every campaign going forward is going to be just like this.And I remember talking about it. With people at the CDC, right? They asked us to come down and present at this conference, made a whole deck about what we had done. And, this pro vaccine mom group and was really struck by how like unimpressed they were by the whole thing, not. That we felt like we should be getting like kudos for what we had done, but that they didn’t see it as a battleground, that they didn’t see it as a source of influence, as a source of where public opinion was shaped, that they didn’t see groups with hundreds of thousands of people in them as a source of alarm.And the phrase that they said that I referenced in the book a bunch of times is these are just some people online, right? So there’s a complete. [00:09:00] Lack of foresight of what was about to happen because of his belief that institutional authority was enough to carry the day. And my sense that it was notMatthew Sheffield: well, and also that they did not understand that.A, I mean, I think we, we have to say that at the outset that while you were encountering all this content, anti vaccine content, that that’s not what the majority opinion was. The majority opinion was pro vaccine and and, and, and so, yeah, with these bots and all these other different tactics of, agreeing to share.Mutual links and whatnot. They’re able to make themselves seem much more numerous than they really are.Renee DiResta: Yep.“If you make it trend, you make it true”Matthew Sheffield: And, and then eventually then the algorithm kicks in and then that promotes the stuff also. And, and you have a phrase which you have used in the book and used over the years, which I like, which is that if you, if you make it trend, you make it true.So what does that mean? [00:10:00] What does that mean?Renee DiResta: So I, it was almost a um, you know, you essentially create reality, right? This is the thing that we’re all talking about. This is the thing that everybody believes. Majority illusion is what you’re referencing there, right? You make yourself look a lot bigger than you are.And algorithms come into play that help you do that. And in a way, it becomes it becomes something of a self fulfilling prophecy. So the, there’s a certain amount of activity and energy there. The thing gets, the content, whatever it is, gets engagement, the hashtag trends. There is so much effort that was being put in in the 2014 to 2016 or so timeframe into getting things trending because it was an incredible source of like attention capture.You were putting an idea out there into the world, and if you got it done with just enough people, It would be pushed out to still more people. The algorithm would kind of give you that lift and then other people would click in and would pay attention. And so there was a real um, means [00:11:00] of galvanizing people by calling attention to your cause and making them feel kind of compelled to join in.So one of the things that we saw, I’m trying to remember if I even referenced this part in the book, was the the ways in which you could like connect different factions on the internet. I have a graph of this that I show in a lot of talks where what you see is like the very long established anti vaccine communities in 2015, the people who’d been on their, their screaming about vaccines causing autism for years.They didn’t get a lot of pickup with that narrative. There were still enough people who were like, no, I don’t know. Like the researchers over here, this is what it says. And you see them pivot the frame of the argument after they lose a couple of couple of votes in the California Senate, I think it was.And you see them move from talking about the sort of health impacts, the sort of the things that we call misinformation, right? Things that are demonstrably false. You see them pivot instead to a frame about rights, about health, freedom, medical freedom. [00:12:00] And you see them they call it, Marrying the hashtags is the language that they use when they’re telling people on their side to do this, which is to tweet the hashtag for the bill, some of the vaccine hashtags, and then they say, tag in, you might remember this one TCO T top conservatives on Twitter or a hashtag to a, which is the second amendment people, for a long time before the first amendment became the be all end all on Twitter, it was actually the second amendment.That was the thing that, that you would see kind of conservative factions fighting over the days of the tea party. And so you saw the anti vaccine activists, again, these people who have this deeply held belief in the health lies, instead pivoting the conversation to focus instead on, okay, it doesn’t matter what the vaccines do, you shouldn’t have to take them.And that becomes the thing that actually enables them to really kind of grow this big tent. And you see the movement begin to expand as they start making this appeal to more sort of a, libertarian or tea party politics. That was that was [00:13:00] quite prominent on, on Twitter at the time. So essentially that is how they managed to grow the So the make a trend, make a true thing was just if you could get enough people paying attention to your hashtag, your rumor, your content, nobody’s going to see the counter movement, the counter fact check, the thing that’s going to come out after the trend is over.It’s the trend that’s going to capture attention, stick in people’s mind and become the thing that they that they think about as a, reality when they’re referencing the conversation later.False or misleading information can no longer be quarantinedMatthew Sheffield: Well, and the reason for that is this other idea of which you talk about, which is that media is additive.That when people think that, well, I, I can somehow stop bad views from being propagated on the internet. Like, that’s the idea. That’s not true. And, and it, and it never, and it never was. And like you, I mean, you can definitel…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Disinformation is everywhere, but what can actually be done about it? Jul 28, 2024
    Show notes

    Episode SummaryBy necessity, monitoring and debunking disinformation has become a much bigger part of journalism and academia in recent years, but oftentimes the important work that people are doing on these matters is missing the larger context.It is certainly worth reporting the truth when politicians, businesses, and activists lie about things. But what the public should also know is why this disinformation is being created. Almost always, it’s for political or religious reasons. And they are usually right wing reasons. Unfortunately, this is a truth that many traditionally trained journalists and academics are still loathe to admit, nine years into Donald Trump’s deceit-filled political career.One person who isn't afraid of telling the larger context of disinformation is my guest on today's episode, Samuel Spitale. He's the author of a very informative book called How to Win the War on Truth: An Illustrated Guide to How Mistruths Are Sold, Why They Stick, and How to Reclaim Reality.The video of this discussion is available. The transcript of audio is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text.Flux is a community-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, please stay in touch.Related Content* Documentary filmmaker Jen Senko on how Fox News corrupted her father’s brain* Big Tobacco pioneered the tactics used by social media misinformation creators* Right-wingers depend on disinformation and deception because their beliefs cannot win otherwise* Authoritarians think differently from others because they think truth derives from authority rather than reality* Why America’s political polarization is ultimately an epistemic problem* The economics of disinformation make it profitable and powerfulAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction05:20 — The influence of marketing and PR08:19 — Edward Bernays: The father of propaganda and public relations12:21 — Marketing's hidden agendas16:14 — The power of fear in media22:03 — Fast thinking vs. slow thinking25:36 — The Overton window and societal shifts30:37 — The critical myth of right-wing populism34:36 — Manufactured crises and moral panics39:19 — Censorship through noise42:16 — The danger of illusory truths52:36 — The role of values over beliefs01:01:39 — Promoting truth and critical thinkingAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.Matthew Sheffield: [00:02:00] And joining me now is Samuel Spitale. Welcome to Theory of Change.Samuel Spitale: Hi, thank you for having me.Matthew Sheffield: So your book is a book about epistemology, but it is essentially a graphic novel in a lot of ways. So how, why did you decide to choose that as a format?It makes it. More interesting.Samuel Spitale: So yeah, when I pitched the book, I kind of pitched it as two different options.It could be. Fully illustrated like a graphic novel. Or it could be more spot illustrated with just illustrations here and there. I knew I wanted a critical thinking learning tool that was a visual throughout the book and I knew I wanted a ton of charts and graphs and, other visual representations of data to show to illustrate a lot of the points.And so, Fortunately, the publisher and the agent both thought that fully illustrated was the way to go. It would be the most accessible to the widest possible audience. And the other benefit is that it could add some levity and humor. To otherwise dismal economic theory and,And humor helps the medicine go down, I guess.Matthew Sheffield: Yeah, well, it, it definitely does keep it lighter in that regard. Yeah. All the, the cartoons. Yeah. So, so you're. What, what's your, your background in all this? Why, why did you, how did you get interested in these topics?Samuel Spitale: Sure. So my background is I went to LSU, Louisiana state university in the manship school of mass communication.And so my degrees are in advertising and media management. And then after college, I went to work for Lucasfilm and a kind of tangential space. In product development. But the older I got, the more my journalism roots and my writing roots kind of took hold. So I moved to LA to focus on storytelling and.And around 2015, a lot of my writing kind of shifted more to real world, topics. And as I guess [00:04:00] the land, the political landscape and cultural landscape begin to shift. I found myself writing more and more about real world issues and. Seeing how many people believe things that were verifiably untrue my own family and friends included that I, I kinda became fascinated with, how, how do we penetrate these barriers of belief with, public at large, but you know, people in, my own family and friends and people in my bubble as well.And so. I kind of went on this quest of figuring out all of all of the things that contribute to us being misinformed. And, my own background in media literacy and journalism obviously played a huge role. But I have an interest in psychology and sociology, which I read a ton of.And so I feel like, those all helped paint a a picture of, all of the areas that we need to be informed or educated about in order to see how we're often sold things that aren't true. And so, this became the book and yeah, hopefully it works as a critical thinking learning tool.And a primer in a lot of these areas that, the average person's just not versed in.Matthew Sheffield: Mm hmm.The influence of marketing and PRMatthew Sheffield: Well, and, and one of those concepts that you discuss in the book length in multiple sections is the idea that No one wants to believe that marketing and PR affect them. And they don't, they think, well, I'm skeptical of the media.And so therefore, I'm not susceptible to messages from others. And that's just not true of anybody.Samuel Spitale: No, completely. And I even used to think that in, in college, like, Because even in school, we were taught that advertising and journalism or journalism, but like, advertising and public relations and marketing.[00:06:00] Were taught to think of it in a very kind of narrow way, a very obvious way, like a movie trailer, or a billboard for, for whatever, for fast food, or, and those are very obvious examples of advertising. And we may or may not, be influenced by those clearly how do we find out a new movies coming out that we might want to see without advertising?Oh, look, there's a trailer, there's a movie poster. That looks like something I'd be interested in. Whether we admit that, it's the advertising part that influenced us, or if the advertising was just an information delivery system you could debate, but what I find more fascinating the older I get is how, All of these forms of, communication have kind of been manipulated for bad.And so, marketing isn't just, a new line of shoes or a new clothing store. It's, it's getting us to believe incorrectly that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Or it's, uh, it's all of these ways, I guess, political strategists and corporations have used these things in an underhanded way.Like, I mean, today I probably feel like the biggest one is global warming. Many people still don't believe in climate change or the global warming is manmade. And that's because. The oil and gas industry has basically utilized the forms of mass communication to convince us that it's still a debate or the science isn't settled.And so all of those ideas, the anti climate science messaging has all originated with the oil and gas lobby. And, it's no coincidence. They were the first ones to discover that global warming was happening and they were causing it. So, they kind of had to get in front of it. And so tracing the history of these messages or these things that we believe is always very revealing because, like [00:08:00] vaccines and autism or whatever it is.Anything that's been debunked that people think may be an equally valid point, you can usually trace the inception where that idea came from, who sold it, And who stood to benefit from us believing the nonsense.Matthew Sheffield: Yeah.Edward Bernays: The father of propaganda and public relationsMatthew Sheffield: Well, and one of the people who really got all that started is something that you do talk about quite a bit that I think most people have never heard of a guy named Edward Bernays. Who was he?Samuel Spitale: Yep. He was the nephew of Sigmund Freud. And I've always found Freud fascinating. So Freud was kind of the, the grandfather of psychoanalysis who believed that humans subconscious desires and motivations kind of drove them and explained everything about them. And Bernays basically took his insights.Into psychology and applied them to marketing and advertising or public relations. And so he used these, kind of emotional manipulation quite successfully to get Americans to buy into things that we had not before. And, the most famous example of Bernays is getting women to smoke cigarettes because women didn't used to smoke.But the cigarette companies, wanted to start selling to the other 50 percent of the population. So what Bernays did was kind of cash in on the women's rights movement and tied cigarettes to being torches of freedom. And so he had all these feminists smoke in like Easter parade. And it was a huge success and women started smoking cigarettes and then, suddenly lung cancer was an equal opportunity offender.But Bernays, he, he did a lot. He got us to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast, which we didn't do. He got architects to install bookshelves into new homes so that the people would buy more [00:10:00] books cause that wasn't something that they did prior, but the publishing industry hired him and yeah, there's just no shortage of products that he, got us to consume to increase sales, but he convinced us, kind of otherwise the hairnet and as another great example, like cafeteria workers didn't use to wear hair nets.And so Bernays convinced health officials that it would be more sanitary. to wear hairnets not for sanitary reasons, but because the hairnet industry was losing sales. in the 1920s, I believe, when women were getting their hair cut into bobs. So they had less hair. So nobody was buying hair nets anymore.So yeah, it had nothing to do with being sanitary. It was all to sell more hair nets.Matthew Sheffield: Yeah. And, and And it's important to note also that he was around before Adolf Hitler as well, and Hitler was, and Goebbels were interested in those techniques as well, and they put those into effect as well.You want to talk about that?Samuel Spitale: Yeah, I mean, they were so successful. Hitler or Goebbels, one of them had his book Propaganda, like, on their shelf, and they definitely used his techniques, the emotional manipulation. In riling people up to smear the Jews and to sell people on, the third Reich and the Nazi regime and their propaganda was so successful that propaganda basically became a bad name, bad word.It became so soiled after World War Two that Bernays and, everyone else in the industry changed the name from propaganda to public relations. very much. So they basically just renamed it, or, but it was essentially still the same. And so, it, the, the principles of propaganda live on in all of its offshoots, public relations marketing, branding publicity all of those things are still propaganda.They're all trying to sell us something. And whether that something is an idea or a belief or a pair [00:12:00] of sneakers, it's kind of all the same a political candidate foreign policy, whatever it is that's you know part of the part of looking at mass communications with a wider lens is Looking at the non physical things that can be sold through the use of propaganda.Matthew Sheffield: Yeah, well, and you even, I mean, you talk about the, the Tour de France.Marketing's hidden agendasMatthew Sheffield: I think most people don't know why that even exists. You want to just go over that real quick? I think that's an interesting little thing.Samuel Spitale: Yeah, it was a publicity stunt. It was, I think the guy's name was Henri de Grange was like a newspaperman, and so he conceived the Tour de France as a way to sell more newspapers to cover it.And then he eventually put his competitor out of business, but the Tour de France, has continued and now it probably operates more as, tourism for the country of France more than anything else. And, but yeah, so many things were conceived as marketing or advertising or publicity.The coffee break was one of those that I didn't know of until I was researching the book. But basically when the, I think was it the Roosevelt administration that passed legislation that instilled a 15 minute break in the workday after so many hours, and so coffee, the coffee manufacturers got together and decided to christen it a coffee break as opposed to a tea break or a soda break so that people would turn to coffee for caffeine.And hence we still today call it a coffee break. And that was an advertising initiative.Matthew Sheffield: Yeah, well, and, and yeah, and food has been a big yeah, food companies have been a big users of that, I think in large part, because I mean, their products are perishable, so they have to sell more of them.And people have to buy them more frequently. And and you, you talk about. I mean, just like the idea that people think bottled water is good. Like, I thought that was a great example. A lot of people don't realize that bottled water is in many cases worse for you. Or theSamuel Spitale: same, or it's just tap water that's been bottled.Or the same,Matthew Sheffield: yeah.Samuel Spitale: The yeah, the main [00:14:00] difference is, is that tap water has to go through has to pass certain standards and is regulated, whereas bottled water is not. So, and then, so we're often made to think that tap water may not be safe and examples like Flint, Michigan, become very salient in our minds and kind of reinforce that idea, even if, it's a very rare example.And so yeah bottled water I think now outsells soda which means a lot of plastic that is thrown into the ocean and is not recycled.Matthew Sheffield: Yeah And then on top of that Yeah And then on top of that also, a lot of these bottles are You know, filled with B they're made of BPA plastics and you're getting, you are getting microplastics in your blood from your water.And because you have that belief. So in some ways it could be worse for you. And obviously, everybody has different water where they live. So I'm not going to say that it's better everywhere, but. Yeah. And but you also talk about Chilean sea bass. Like, I think that's something that's one I had not heard of.That's, and it's kind of funny. Well, you want to talk about that?Samuel Spitale: Yeah, sure. So yeah, the there was a fish called tooth fish that had a very bad name. And they wanted to sell more of it. So they basically rebranded it as Chilean sea bass, even though. It's usually not fished out of the sea. It's not a bass and it doesn't come from Chile.I think everything about it is misleading.Matthew Sheffield: Yeah. It's common.Samuel Spitale: Yeah. And and actually something, I don't know, I don't think it made it into the book and I may have put it in the audio book if I had room, but one of the reasons it took off is because I think it was mentioned in Jurassic park. Chilean sea bass is used or eaten or something I read or heard.IMatthew Sheffield: vaguely recall it because they have a restaurant in there. Yeah,Samuel Spitale: right. And so I, yeah, I don't remember how it's used, but ap…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Can Donald Trump actually get more Black people to vote for him? Jul 21, 2024
    Show notes

    Episode SummaryIt's just over three months before Election Day and President Joe Biden is behind his Republican opponent, Donald Trump, in most public opinion polls. One of the biggest reasons this is happening is that Biden seems to be getting much less than the 85 percent support from Black Americans that Democrats typically do. Just how much less support is difficult to say, however, because most polls don’t have enough African-American respondents to draw meaningful conclusions. But there have been some that have. In a survey conducted last month by Suffolk University in the swing states of Michigan and Pennsylvania, only 56 percent of Black registered voters picked Biden.There is also a generational divide to the discontent. In April, the Pew Research Center found that 84% of Black registered voters ages 50 and up said they’d vote for Biden if the election were held today, while only 68 percent who were 49 and younger said the same.In a May national survey conducted by the University of Chicago, 23 percent of black adults between 18 and 40 said they would vote for Trump. 33% picked Biden, while 25 percent said they’d vote for “someone else.”Undoubtedly, much of the problem that Biden seems to be facing stems from his advanced age. He is the oldest person to ever hold the office of president, and Americans of all races and parties have expressed concerns about this for many years.But almost certainly, there are some other factors in the mix. After ignoring Black voters for decades, the Republican party has been putting forward black entertainers who like Trump. And there are more than a handful who do, most prominently Amber Rose, who spoke at the Republican National Convention on July 15.There’s also the question of whether Trump’s macho personality and sexist treatment of women might be making him appealing to men who have marinated in pop culture products that frequently degrade and insult women.We’ll see how things shake out in November whether Trump gets a higher percentage of the Black vote than a typical Republican, but he can still succeed by getting enough African-Americans to stay home instead of voting for Biden. In the meantime, I wanted to bring in my friend Jamilah Lemieux to discuss all this. She is a podcaster at Slate and a writer who has published extensively on Black culture and politics, including a recent piece at Vanity Fair on misogyny and hip-hop. Besides at her Substack, you can find her on Instagram and Twitter.The video of this discussion is available. The transcript of audio is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. Cover photo: Model Amber Rose speaks at the Republican National Convention in praise of Donald Trump. July 15, 2024. Image via screenshot.Flux is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, please stay in touch.Related Content* Doja Cat and the lies we tell ourselves about sex and race* How Black churches and independent media have energized African-Americans against right-wing extremism* Republicans seem to have no idea why most Black people don’t like them 🔒* How far-right Northern Republicans remade the party in the image of Confederate Christianity* Many Black Americans don’t like Democrats, but they loathe Republicans even more, how long can this last?* Nicki Minaj, Snoop Dogg, and toxic gravitation🔒* The attacks on Claudine Gay were part of the right wing’s 60-year war on education and racial equalityAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction04:41 — Trump’s outreach to black men07:14 — Donald Trump and hip-hop11:01 — Amber Rose at the RNC15:40 — Is there a connection between misogyny in hip-hop and Trump support?19:47 — Kendrick Lamar vs. Drake and the dilemma of female rap fans27:38 — Black Americans and the Christian Right29:33 — Joe Biden seems to be partnering less with Black celebrities than Donald Trump33:26 — Comparing Kamala Harris and Barack Obama36:43 — Democrats haven’t realized that their voters want positive motivation45:56 — Kamala Harris as the potential Democratic nominee51:29 — Concluding thoughts and future outlookAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.Matthew Sheffield: There’s been so much happening in the political world lately, and one of the things is Joe Biden’s favorability among Black Americans. It’s lower at this point in time than past Democratic presidential candidates. Do you think that Trump’s going to improve his numbers significantly from 2020 among Black people?Jamilah Lemieux: I don’t know if Trump is going to improve his numbers with Black people significantly, but I do expect it. I expect that they’ll improve this time around.The GOP has been making a big push for Black men since the last [00:05:00] election. Once the DNC really started embracing Black women, talking about listening to Black women, trust Black women are this important voter block I think the RNC saw an opportunity to speak to Black men. And I think there were Black men who were turned off by the Democrats focusing on Black women specifically, even though we are worthy of that attention and have earned that attention as such a tremendously loyal voting block Black men are not far behind us, but they are behind us. But I’ve seen a lot of. Right wing propaganda making its way around online hip-hop spaces and being promoted by Black male influencers.I, see them spreading pro-Trump ideology on Twitter. And I don’t doubt that some of these guys are getting checks. They’re being paid by, by PACs, by whomever [00:06:00] to promote. Republican ideas to Black audiences, particularly, Black audiences that aren’t super educated.Matthew Sheffield: Yeah. And another way that they’re making some of this marketing approach also I think is, using religion and using that as a tool. Because I mean, a lot of Black Americans are the most religious and most Christian demographic with lots of fundamentalist viewpoints, right? That’s got to be effective for some people.Jamilah Lemieux: Yes, but interestingly enough, Black women are far more religious than Black men. But Black women have historically been able to vote their interests as opposed to just voting with their Bibles. So, I am curious to see how many religious Black men are converted by these attempts to court them.Matthew Sheffield: Yeah. And, of course, I mean, it’s something that they’ve done for a little [00:07:00] while, prominently with Ben Carson and his idiocy. Man, yeah, he because I mean, he’s been riding that gravy train for decades of, trying to be the pious guy that needs your money.Rappers and Trump’s influenceMatthew Sheffield: And then of course, they’re also, the Republicans are also making a lot of Outreach using entertainers who are Black.Yeah. Using entertainers who are Black, particularly. Rappers. And I mean, there’s, like nobody who’s really currently that big in hip hop is out there, shilling for Trump but still, some of the, past ones are you want to like, like the, I, for people don’t know, like, for instance, Trump did an appearance in New Jersey a little while ago with some rappers That I don’t it didn’t get as much attention as it should have, I think, because it was really revealing.Jamilah Lemieux: I think it’s because the rappers were just not that well known. I [00:08:00] think if people knew who these guys were. I don’t remember their names. Like, I don’t even know who does. I didn’t know who those guys were prior to that event.Matthew Sheffield: They’re guys who are, basically live in the New York area. And one guy calls himself Sheff G. He apparently has millions of YouTube views and Spotify streams, but he also is the central figure in a gang case that the Brooklyn district attorney started prosecuting. And he has been sentenced for weapons possession.And then the other rapper who was there with Trump is this other guy who goes by Sleepy Hollow. He’s got lots of Spotify fans and he’s also in the gang case as well. And Trump was out there, he had them on stage and introduced them to everybody. And it’s very bizarre seeing Republicans trying to have it both ways. Don’t you think?Jamilah Lemieux: Absolutely.Matthew Sheffield: Yeah. [00:09:00] Oh, you’re looking something up.Jamilah Lemieux: Yeah. I was just thinking about Trump pardoning Kodak Black and Little Wayne and why that might be part of the reason that these rappers are willing to be around him. There have been rappers in Trump’s orbit for a very long time. I mean, once upon a time Trump might have popped up in a rap video, like a lot of rappers were impressed by his wealth, by his alleged business acumen and his lifestyle, right? So, like Trump was name dropped in a whole lot of rap records, I think of songs by Wu-Tang that mentioned him.But like. More recently, I think of little Wayne and Kodak Black who received presidential pardons on President Trump’s last day in office both related to gun charges. And I suspect that some of the rappers who are willing to be in his orbit now are looking for something similar to happen for them or perhaps [00:10:00] for some of their friends.Matthew Sheffield: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you have to think so. And I mean, that is apparently how Kanye West got to know Trump initially when he was the president. That he, when he was married to Kim Kardashian, that she was involved in trying to get some pardons for various people. And so, she reached out to the Trump White House, and he tagged along.And that was when Kanye decided he loved Trump and loved Republicans. Not too, many years after saying George Bush doesn’t care about Black people. And, but yeah, but even like, he’s another example of the religious fundamentalism stuff, like, I mean, that guy’s religious viewpoints are.Completely nuts. He, he thinks he’s a prophet. He talks to Jesus daily. I’ve got a continuous stream of conversation with God in his brain.Amber Rose at the RNCMatthew Sheffield: And then Trump’s also been making some other [00:11:00] overtures, not just with Black men, but also with Amber Rose, who you have interviewed in the past. You want to talk about her for people who don’t know who she is, maybe give us a little intro first.Jamilah Lemieux: Yeah, Amber Rose is a model, socialite, and influencer who came to notoriety because she was once Kanye West’s girlfriend. And she made a name for herself outside of that. She briefly got involved with some pro women’s activism champing against slut shaming, being outspoken about abortion rights and reproductive justice.But I think that And Amber, who identifies as mixed race and could be considered White passing, I don’t think that appealing to her was an attempt to get Black women. I think getting Amber Rose was about getting Black men. I think it was about her being an object of desirability for Black men and the GOP thinking that Black men are [00:12:00] so dull witted, that a pretty woman can charm them into changing their vote or casting a vote when they wouldn’t have.Cast one in the first place.Matthew Sheffield: And so, she gave a speech at the Republican national convention last night. And here’s a little piece from it where she’s getting cheered on from the stage.Amber Rose: I realized Donald Trump and his supporters don’t care if you’re Black, White, gay, or straight, it’s all love.And that’s when it hit me. These are my people. This is where I belong.Matthew Sheffield: And there it is. So, yeah, and she, did [00:13:00] typical kind of Black Republican tropes in her speech a lot. But I mean, what was your reaction when you heard that she was speaking there besides the fact that you think they are Black men, like, like, I mean, you had talked to her before, like you have spoken to her years ago.Jamilah Lemieux: Yeah. I think Amber is the grifter. This makes me call into question everything I believe that she stood for in the past with regard to women’s rights. I think she’s found a hustle. I think that was the hustle for her in the past. Now she’s onto a new hustle that pays a little bit better.I don’t think Amber Rose would have ever stood on a stage the size of the Republican National Convention had she not been there. She would never have a platform like this if she wasn’t doing what she’s doing by attaching herself to MAGA.She’s an attention seeker. She’s been good at keeping herself in the public eye for all these years without having a discernible talent. [00:14:00] She doesn’t do that much modeling at this point. Like, it’s not like you see her on the runway or in a print magazine anywhere. She’s kind of famous for being famous, sort of like the Kardashians, but she doesn’t have skims or a Kylie beauty, you know what I mean?So what was she going to sell? She’s selling herself.Matthew Sheffield: Yeah. And she tried to be a rapper but it was, So completely a nonevent that I think a lot of people don’t even remember that it happened. And I never listened to it, and I don’t know anybody who has except maybe for journalistic purposes.So yeah, like and that’s, buttressing your point, people didn’t like what she was doing necessarily, because she wasn’t really doing anything. And she wasn’t, getting model contracts for whatever reason. And so, the Republicans will always welcome a person who is going to sell out to them.Jamilah Lemieux: [00:15:00] Yeah.Matthew Sheffield: And at the same time though, it just, it seems so completely insincere. I mean, Matt Walsh, the extremist Christian commentator over at the Daily Wire, he got angry that she was allowed to speak there. He says on Twitter, he made a tweet that said: “The RNC gives a prime time speaking slot to a pro-abortion feminist and self-proclaimed slut with a face tattoo whose only claim to fame is having sex with a rapper. Truly an embarrassment. Not a single voter will be mobilized by this person.”Is he right on that last point?Jamilah Lemieux: I think he is. I think he is.Is there a connection between misogyny in hip-hop and Trump support?Matthew Sheffield: Yeah. Well, okay. So, and it’s still up in the air as we’re recording but there are some rumors that 50 Cent, he may make an appearance at the convention as well.On Monday when Trump came out to bask in the applause he came out to one of 50s [00:16:00] songs, one of his more famous ones. Like, I mean, but he’s always been kind of a Republican over the years. Right.Jamilah Lemieux: Yeah. 50 is very conservative and would fit right in with the Republican party.Matthew Sheffield: Well, and, I mean, and, like, as you were to go back to what you were saying about, Trump, he was named check quite a bit, especially in the mid-2010s by a lot of rappers and maybe, and obviously that’s probably in conjunction with the apprentice.I’m sure that’s related to it as well. But this is something that you have been writing about recently, this idea of, the, I mean, just the inherent sexism in so much of rap music, then like there’s some affinity with Trump and his macho and well, he’s an adjudicated rapist, we can say that and his, the way that he treats women and abuses them.I mean, that’s [00:17:00] probably another point of affinity. But yeah,Jamilah Lemieux: I think that misogyny is really what connects Black men and White men through hip hop, like, I think that White men who didn’t grow up in the inner city around gangs, around street violence can’t necessarily relate to that part of the music.But they can relate to hating women, right? They can relate to thinking of women as b*****s and hoes. Same as, middle class Black guys who didn’t grow up around street violence or who are, somewhat insulated from that connect with hip hop because of the misogyny, because of the way it’s structured.Speaks about women and to women. And I think that Trump’s treatment of women appeals to, a lot of men, Black, White, and otherwise, to feel disenfranc…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    After centuries of objectification, women are finally taking control of their sexualities Jul 11, 2024
    Show notes

    Episode SummaryThe “Sexual Revolution” started more than 60 years ago, but in a lot of ways, having complete control over your own choices when it comes to dating, sex, and family is only just now becoming a reality for many people. That’s particularly true for women since far-right Republicans have continuously rejected the idea that abortion and birth control should be legal.But the radical right’s refusal to accept bodily autonomy isn’t the only thing that’s stood in the way of women’s ability to make their own choices. Despite some advances, it is also the case that businesses and society as a whole have not fully accepted the idea that women’s bodies are not communal possessions, subject to public comment or disapproval. The constant pressure from other people that girls and women face also filters inward, my guest on today’s episode argues, making for yet another external pressure that prevents women from full autonomy.Realizing how this happens and how to overcome it is the topic of Suzannah Weiss’s new book, Subjectified: Becoming a Sexual Subject, which is out now in bookstores and online.Weiss is a writer and sexologist based in Los Angeles. As a sex educator certified by the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors, and Therapists, she has taught courses and given talks on topics including consent, orgasms, childbirth, non-monogamy, and neurodiversity. She is regularly quoted as an expert in publications like Cosmopolitan and Men's Health as resident sexologist for Biird and also works as a sex/love coach, birth doula, and sexual assault counselor. You can find her on Twitter and Instagram.The video of this discussion is available. The transcript of audio is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. Cover photo: Diego RosaFlux is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, please stay in touch.Related Content* Why MAGA is morphing beyond a political identity into a sexual fetish* More women acknowledging bisexual identities as social tolerance has increased* The ‘world’s oldest profession’ is attaining new relevance in the internet age* How a closeted Christian writer inadvertently documented his descent into right-wing extremism* A former porn star is helping straight men understand intimacy and themselves* Newspaper classified ads invented social media and blind dating* Fitness has always been political, even if you didn’t realize itAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction05:36 — Suzannah’s career as a sex writer07:32 — Early experiences of sexual objectification15:03 — Commercialization of feminism17:46 — Eating disorders and objectification21:33 — The self-pleasure gap between men and women23:46 — How new age movements also perpetuate sexism28:30 — How social movements can be both exploitative and empowering of women simultaneously34:55 — Hugh Hefner's legacy39:20 — Body neutrality vs. body positivity40:45 — Male body positivity and societal expectations46:51 — The politics of pubic hair49:30 — Sex work as personal liberation and a societal forceAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.Matthew Sheffield: So the title of the book is “Subjectified,” and then the subtitle is “Becoming a Sexual Subject,” and it is something you go back to in literally every single chapter, and you do that with good reason. But what do you mean by becoming a sexual subject first?Suzannah Weiss: By subject, I mean the opposite of objects. So the book is about how women can go beyond their own objectification and having their own sexuality. And so I play with the concepts of subject and object, both in the traditional sense of objectification of women and in the sort of literary sense of who [00:03:00] gets to be in the subject and object roles of sentences.And so each chapter is a verb and talks about how women can be the subjects of that verb when they are normally the objects. So for instance, women are often taught To be the objects of desire or the objects of the gaze or the objects of romantic interest. And so the goal of the book is to talk about how women can be the subjects of all of those things, how they can focus on their own desires, how they can focus on what they're looking at.How they can focus on what their interests and goals are, not just in sex, but in life. And I also talk about how “Subjectified,” the title is a little bit ironic because it's in the passive voice. So women, when I talk about subjectifying women, are the objects. But I go into that in some of the later chapters, how women can be objects and [00:04:00] subjects.And sometimes being an object is what you desire. And if that is your desire, it's also okay to be an object.Matthew Sheffield: Yeah. And I mean, and it is definitely you, definitely deal with the idea of sexual objectification quite a bit. So for people who haven't read A lot of feminist literature. what, does the term objectification mean for, people who are not familiarSuzannah Weiss: objectification of women means seeing women as being there to fulfill other people's desires. Usually men's desires rather than their own.So objectification can mean sexualized media images, advertising that focuses on disembodied women's like boobs or other body parts. It can mean in the way we talk about sex as if it's something for that's just for sex. women's duty to their partners, or that it is women's duty to look good to their [00:05:00] partners, especially if they are men.It is basically the idea that women are there for men's pleasure. And as I discuss in the book, I also talk about how this shows up even in feminist movements, even in movements like Body positivity focusing on how all kinds of women can be sexually arousing to look at or In even discussions about consent that tend to focus on women's ability to say yes or no to men's desires rather than having their ownMatthew Sheffield: Yeah, and we'll definitely get into that as we go along here.Suzannah's career as a sex writerMatthew Sheffield: so and you you're writing this book from your experience as a sex writer. So maybe let's just give it a little overview of, your, your career, like when did you start doing that? And why did you start doing it? And like, what are some of the maybe if you have any stories that you think are worth sharing from that experience as well.Suzannah Weiss: Yeah. So this book [00:06:00] is very first person. Every chapter talks about my journey with some element of sexual empowerment, and it's based on my nine year career as a sex and relationship writer. having adventures such as going to clothing optional resorts, going to sex parties, going to a women's masturbation workshop.And the common theme, not always, but is seeing how women are still objectified in settings meant to empower them. And probably one of the experiences that inspired the book the most was my experience at a clothing optional resort that was saying they were there to empower women. And yet women were, there were just pictures of naked women everywhere.There was a double standard in terms of like, women are. expected to hook up with other women, but God forbid men [00:07:00] hook up with other men. And there, there was just this male gaze, which is a concept I talk about a lot, this assumption that women should be catering to this stereotypical heterosexual male gaze, or that gaze is in objective perspective, that particular taste for looking at naked women, for instance.So, yeah, there were many experiences like that shaped this book.Matthew Sheffield: Huh. Yeah. Yeah, and we'll definitely get into that further.Early experiences of sexual objectificationMatthew Sheffield: And I guess, early, the early parts of the book, you are talking about how, you know, you became aware of yourself as, sexual object by society from a very young age.And, it's something that a lot of women unfortunately do have that realization when they're young girls. There was a friend of mine who's a writer and podcaster named Jamilah Lemieux, and she had a [00:08:00] Twitter thread where she just asked her followers, how old were you when adult men started coming for you. And it was really disturbing.Suzannah Weiss: Yeah. Matthew Sheffield: And there were a lot of women who were like, yeah, well, I was eight. I was, nine, I was 11. And not every woman has that experience, some of the women that I know didn't really have that, have to deal with that when they were younger, but it is an aspect of sexualization that it isn't talked about as much as it should be.You talked about your own experience with that as well, becoming aware of your body as seen through others, right?Suzannah Weiss: Yes. The way I describe that experience [00:09:00] is it's as if my eyes left their sockets and stood in outer space looking at me instead of looking at the rest of the world.They call this, psychologists call this objectified body consciousness, where you are of your body as an object. And you look at your face almost if it's a, as if it's a mask, you lose a sense of connection to the sensations and perceptions that your body is experiencing. And you feel you focus instead on what, how other people are experiencing you.And that's how I felt. For me, it was probably around 12 or 13 when I noticed little things like one man telling me I look developed and some guys talking about looking down girls shirts in school. It was this very weird experience of thinking the world is in my eyes. And then suddenly I'm inside other people's eyes, and they are sizing me [00:10:00] up, and it's my duty to look or perform a certain way for them.It takes you out of your body, this experience.Matthew Sheffield: Yeah. And, I think, to some degree, there's it's, it might, it's too easy to think, though, that these types of, Expectations and treatment of, girls and women is something that's some sort of modern affectation. But it's really not the case at all.I mean, there's, this is really a long, history of this in human society and, kind of seeing women as the object of, men's sexuality, not, and not having your own. I mean, like for instance, in the Bible the Hebrew Bible, there's prohibitions on male. homosexual acts, but there are no prohibitions on female homosexual acts because that's not even considered a possibility that women would want to do. That, that's my favorite example of it. And also maybe who knows [00:11:00] why. SoSuzannah Weiss: what you're saying is God is okay with lesbians.Matthew Sheffield: Yes, basically that's what it seems like. And it does fit that, and it does kind of fit that, that that experience that you're talking about. So, but also part of that, same age development that you were talking about in this, in the beginning part of the book later on, you also add in the idea of getting your own period and that's something that also is.Can be a very traumatizing experience for a lot of women. And you talked about your own experience with that. Do you want to talk go into that here a bit, if you could?Suzannah Weiss: I'm actually working on my second book now, which deals a lot with that. So I didn't Go deep, so deep into that and subjectified that I talk about how women we learn from a young age to expect pain throughout our lives and menstruation is one way in which we learn that and it is very tied to reproduction and this idea that you [00:12:00] have a destiny as a mother.And that is another thing that can be jarring when you are 9, 10, 11 years old to first learn about that. And like, what? I'm like a baby making machine? And you, it's another way that you kind of learn that you exist for other people. Not that having a period makes that true, but that the way in which it's talked about is often In terms of a sacrifice or in terms of pain that women have to go through in order to bring forth the next generation.And it feels, and there's also very little context given to it. Like it is unsettling to learn about your vagina bleeding. If you are not told like this is perfectly normal, it's okay. Like it shouldn't be painful if you're not given that context. Yeah. And the book goes into how that's another way in which women learn that their bodies exist for other people.[00:13:00] This idea that it's their destiny to be mothers.Matthew Sheffield: Yeah, and well, and it also. I mean, I think in a lot of states and localities, it is also the case that many parents or schools do not give girls any sort of instruction about this. And I, mean, I personally, have known a number of women that were like, yeah, I, when I got my period, nobody had told me anything.They, I had been told generically at some point that would happen to me, but nothing at all about what that meant. Or what I was supposed to do or anything like that. And it's, it is kind of, it's really, it is incredible. I think that's such a, very basic and personal thing that a lot of people, I, I've never told anything about I mean, you, talk about that to some degree, right?Suzannah Weiss: Yeah. My first [00:14:00] exposure to the idea of periods was when I was like, Almost 11, I was at sleepaway camp and we were playing Mad Libs. And there was one, like, suggestion that we had to fill out was a bad day. And someone yelled, the day before your period! And I was like, what's that? And they were like, it's when your thing bleeds and you grow hair there.And so I imagine that, like, you were rushed to the hospital and you were bleeding, and then you came out and you suddenly had pubic hair. And then it was very depressing to learn that supposedly happened every month, because I still thought of it as this medical emergency, and there was just no context.Yeah, and I also talk about how like, now there's all these ideas about women being moon goddesses and menstruation connecting you to your feminine intuition, which felt just as shitty for me to learn about, like, because it's the [00:15:00] stereotype. Projected onto our bodies.Commercialization of feminismMatthew Sheffield: Yeah. Well, and, you really do talk about that concept quite a lot of how feminism has kind of been commercialized in a lot of different ways.And that's a, it is a thing that you talk about in many different facets, but I guess maybe probably most prominently is in a lot of these commercials now that you see that are there, they, claim to be about body positivity, but. They really don't define what that means, but then it's also sexualized at the same time.And, and like, and I think for, when right wing people see commercials that are, showing women who are not, skinny or showing all different kinds of body types that, or, heights or whatever, or breast sizes that, they get angry at that. And they think of it as an example of leftism run amok, but that's really not what this is.It is [00:16:00] companies trying to commercialize a social movement that is left wing and in some ways kind of. strip it of its essential message, right?Suzannah Weiss: Yeah, I mean, I, don't even have an issue with a variety of bodies being shown in advertising. I think that's a good thing, but that's not what I look to for inspiration about my self esteem because it is often about catering to the male gaze and showing that All kinds of women can be sexualized and can be in the same sexualized ads and the same beauty pageants and the same things that are problematic to begin with.So I don't have an issue with plus size models, obviously, bu…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    How useful are the Biden-Trump polls right now? Jun 20, 2024
    Show notes

    Episode SummaryPresident Joe Biden and Donald Trump are facing off for the second time this year, but a number of polls have shown a surprisingly close race, despite the fact that Trump has been convicted of 34 felonies and he stands as the only president in American history to have sent an armed mob to block the certification of his electoral defeat.How is this scenario possible? There are a lot of reasons for it, and some of them involve decisions made by Democratic leaders and donors that were made many years ago by refusing to invest in progressive advocacy media. Right wing media is now a gigantic enterprise that is capable of influencing people who don’t even watch it.The Biden-Trump race is also taking place in a post-pandemic moment, in which many companies dramatically raised prices and have refused to lower them. It’s a reality that has affected many people, especially those with lower incomes.What it all means is that there are millions of Americans who dislike both of the major parties’ presidential candidates and that the contest between Trump and Biden is likely to be decided by these so-called “double-haters.”Joining me to discuss in this episode is Stephen Clermont. He is the head of polling at Change Research, a Democratic polling company.The video of this discussion is available. The transcript of audio is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. Cover photo: President Joe Biden speaks during the Department of Homeland Security twentieth anniversary ceremony at DHS Headquarters in Washington, DC. (DHS photo by Tia Dufour)Flux is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, please stay in touch.Related Content* How ‘unlikely voters’ could be the key to the 2024 presidential election* Can we trust opinion polls? The Pew Research Center is trying to make sure* Latino evangelicals are reshaping American politics, and politicians should take notice* How much do political party elites know about their own voters?* The right built an infrastructure to attack democracy, the left must build one to protect itAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction02:34 — Trump's legal challenges and public perception08:39 — Persuadable voters are real, even though they've declined in number12:26 — Republicans and Democrats have very different political ecosystems17:36 — Partisan media is an enormous advantage for Republicans28:50 — Trump is doubling down on Republicans' negative campaign strategies32:42 — Economic challenges and Biden's presidency35:24 — Trump's past actions and public awareness46:33 — Hispanic voters and immigration policies50:48 — Republican primary dynamics and voter motivation53:57 — How Republicans use "demotivation" tactics to target left-leaning AmericansAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So the election, I think there's a lot of stuff going on, and in the news cycle, the thing that happened most recently is the felony conviction of Donald Trump on 34 counts of falsifying documents in the furtherance of, well, basically campaign finance violations in New York City.And you guys did a poll recently that asked about that to a number of [00:03:00] respondents. So, why don't you walk us through the findings and then we can talk about what your take on, on them is.STEPHEN CLERMONT: Sure. Well, we recently completed a national survey. We actually started it the day after Trump was convicted of 34 felonies.I should, I think calling him Trump is, I think it'd be a little more formal and respectful. The former president and likely Republican nominee is. convicted of 34 felony charges, which is not something that happens every election cycle. So as part of to just to get a read on what we we found and what people's responses to this.I think, I think it's important to level set like what polling is. And what we should expect from polling now versus what we think. And it's, it's interesting to me to see the number of polls that were, are published and how many people get excited about them. And the New York Times comes out with a [00:04:00] poll and it dominates the, the political narrative and goes to these averages.I've always worked in polling in, for democratic companies that are helping campaigns When elections or interest groups trying to pass legislation or companies trying to understand how laws are going to react to their business and like polling really does need to actually have a purpose and a solution beyond just like, Too much of it gets reported as people want to react to it and feel a certain way, or like they expect Trump is convicted and polling should respond to that.And I think part of that comes from how polling used to be done, like 20, 25 years ago, Trump would have been convicted on a Thursday. Newsweek would have gotten in the field on a Friday, they would have done two nights worth of interviewing and be up that weekend with results, and they normally show very [00:05:00] respondents reacted very much to events like after the Democratic Convention in 1984, Walter Mondale was trailing.I think Ronald Reagan by a point or two and he ended up losing in 49 states. Polls were very reactive to events when people would put them in the field. And I think a lot of people put polls in the field after the conviction. And I think we're setting ourselves up for disappointment because polling, polling used to be you'd call people randomly on a phone.And you would adjust it to a bunch of demographics on age, gender, race region. Polling never used to be weighted by party ID or past vote. So you, it would always be an effect of people who have been most, responding most to the news being ones most likely to take surveys. So you'd see these big bounces.That's partly because polling the way it was then was not controlling the partisan composition. Because party ID is an attitudinal variable and the right [00:06:00] way to do polling is you don't wait by things that are attitudinal and then over time, we've gotten to the point now where it's just like wait party or wait to pass vote based on either interviews that you've done over time, the last 5, 000 interviews, what was the party ID and that you'd wait to that and control by party so to see, to see big movement, Towards Trump is not something they are away from Trump is towards Biden is not something I think we should be expecting from polling right now.People's minds are very set. You're not really going to convince Republicans who are answering a survey to say that I'm a Republican. I voted for Trump. I'm voting for Joe Biden. That just doesn't happen in polling. And so the things that we have found that I believe are interesting is we asked this question. How much have you heard about his legal challenges? 86 percent a great deal. Would you say his legal challenges are justified? They're very serious allegations made against him and they [00:07:00] need to be investigated. 52 percent unjustified. He's being politically persecuted. 44 percent and normally you can see like Democrats largely believe that justified.Republicans say that they're unjustified. Although 8 percent say that they are, and 52 percent of independents say that they're justified. So the, the thing that I'm looking at when I'm sort of analyzing these results is a majority of people believe these charges are justified. Joe Biden is not at 52 percent in polling.So we're seeing is like majorities of this country believe these are justified. The question that we need to ask is what percentage of those are ultimately going to end up voting for Trump? People don't believe, only 15 percent believe he's going to serve time in prison. 51 percent say the charges will be overturned.And. Or 66 percent believe that his conviction is, will be upheld, but he's not going to serve time.SHEFFIELD: But when weCLERMONT: ask a [00:08:00] question like thinking about the verdict, how does this make you feel about voting in the November presidential election? This is where this, these questions get tricky. So 38 percent say they're more likely to vote for Trump, 29 percent more likely to vote for Biden. 33 percent does not impact my vote. But you have to look at this is. The people that say that they're more likely to vote for Trump are already voting for him. 78 percent of Republicans say that they're more likely to vote for Trump. Because of this versus 59 percent of Democrats who say they're most likely to vote for Biden. So the thing that we're looking at we look at various measures in our polls of sort of the people who are going to make the difference.Persuadable voters are real, even though they've declined in numberCLERMONT: Whether it's double haters, people who are unfavorable to both Trump and Biden. And there's a broader category that I refer to as movable voters, which are people who, Don't support either Trump or Biden, or in this case the way we asked it, RFK, in polling, people are undecided or say that they're going to vote for none of these [00:09:00] candidates, as well as people who somewhat disapprove of the job that Joe Biden is doing.It's this sort of weird phenomenon that exists during the Biden presidency where everyone who approves of the job he's doing numbers that are sort of in the high thirties to low forties, overwhelmingly voting for him. People who strongly disapprove of him the job he's doing overwhelmingly voting for Trump.And there's this, this group of somewhat disapprovers or not sure, who in the 2022 election, the Democrats ended up winning because those voters broke for Democrats down ballot.And I've gone back and looked at the. Sort of soft disapprovers in the 2012 election. And those voters, those who somewhat disapprove of the job Obama was doing were more than two to one Romney voters. There were just more people who approved of the job that Barack Obama was doing than Joe Biden. So the movables which we've been tracking for a bunch of surveys we put out a [00:10:00] big report with this group, Future Majority, looking at them earlier this year. 24 percent say they're more likely to vote for Biden, 6 percent more likely to vote for Trump.70 percent this does not impact my vote. And the double haters, the movables, they don't like either candidate, but they're much more intensely. Dislike Trump versus Biden, like the ratio of very unfaith to somewhat unfaith is more split with Biden. It's overwhelmingly very unfavorable towards Trump.And we see that in a lot of the polling, the public polling that's done and the polling that we do. Trump is at the level he got in 2020. He's at 46, 47, 48 percent nationally. And in all the swing states, he has, it's very important to, to, he has not gained vote share and a lot of like polling is reported by margins.But if I can urge everyone listening, [00:11:00] when you're looking at a poll, don't, don't look at the margin, don't look like, Oh my God, Biden's trailing by four. Biden's up one, look at where the raw percentage of where Biden is, where Trump is, and how big the undecided vote is because Trump has. Consolidated and kept his voters.That has been true since the conviction. His very favorable with Republicans is up 10 points from the low point after the 22 election. He's consolidating his base and keeping his base with him, which has been his big project basically since the, since the January 6th attack and. Biden is a few points lower than where he needs to be, but we say when we're thinking about this election, which is, it's not going to be one on big decisive moments with verdicts or sentences or big speeches at conventions, or maybe even, it's going to be a slog of winning [00:12:00] every single day, every single news cycle Trump has very limited ways he can do that beyond his own base.And the Biden's big challenge is just getting the people skeptical of what he has accomplished in his presidency who are hesitant about voting for him now, but voted for him before to come out and vote for him again. And that's what the campaign is essentially going to be.Republicans and Democrats have very different political ecosystemsSHEFFIELD: Yeah, and it's, and it is these polls are a good illustration of the fundamental differences of the Republican and Democratic parties' ecosystems that, the Republican, so I think, and I think the best illustration of this is that the percentage of white evangelicals in the general population has declined over the past several decades, but the percentage of white evangelicals as in the vote. In the electorate has stayed basically the same.And so basically what they had, [00:13:00] the Republican party has been sort of squeezing more and more blood from the stone over time. And and their demographic is overwhelmingly older. In the 2020 election, I believe I think everybody in their polls showed that over 50 was the only age group that Donald Trump.One, he lost all the other age groups. Yes, it depends. Yeah, that's my recollection. Yeah.CLERMONT: And the evangelical, the white evangelicals are strategically located important places like Wisconsin, Wisconsin, outside Milwaukee and Madison through all throughout Michigan, outside Detroit,SHEFFIELD: Pennsylvania.CLERMONT: Yeah, they, they do make the difference in there.I haven't gone back to look at this and I probably should have just Percentage of white evangelicals voting for Trump now versus for George W. Bush and for John Kerry. I, my recollection is that they were in Bush. Bush was in the high 60s, low 70s, and [00:14:00] with Trump now, it's over 80%. Like, I think the way that the evangelical community has been fused to the Republican Party is much stronger now than it was then.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, I think so. And so, so whereas on the Democratic side so Democrats kind of have Republicans are in some ways, and people have made this observation that in a lot of ways, Republicans are a coalition of kind of the middle and the very richest, and then Democrats are a coalition of sort of the middle and the very upper middle and then the lower in terms of income.And that's, and because of that, though, that means that a lot of people who are, we'll say a somewhat regular democratic voter, they don't really pay attention to politics very much. They don't follow it. It's not a hobby. It's not fun for them. It's annoying for them. They hate it actually.They don't, they don't like it. And so. That's kind of the, the disadvantage that Joe Biden [00:15:00] has. I think it has an ecosystem compared to Donald Trump. But what, what do you think?CLERMONT: I think that's right. And I think we can see, I mean, one of the most consistent poll findings you can be out there is like, you ask about the CHIPS Act or you ask about the inflation reduction act, all the things that Joe Biden has done.Yes, people aware of that. It's like when you give them the information, they're strongly supportive of it, but they've never heard of it. It's not, it's whatever sort of building projects are being done in their communities is not being connected to the larger that this was a result of Joe Biden, the Democrats passing this legislation.And there isn't, there's, I think this is a larger challenge for Democrats, but the recent past now and in the future is there's no coherent narrative of what democratic leadership and what demo…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    What AI can tell us about podcast guests and the left/right media ecosystems Jun 14, 2024
    Show notes

    Episode SummaryPodcasts are an increasingly important part of many Americans news and entertainment options. There are thousands of them and many of them feature guests like this one, but some of them don’t. The political dynamic of podcast guests is interesting also because it appears that people who hail from the center-left side of the aisle are less likely to be prolific podcast guests than those who hail from the rightward side of the political spectrum.The Pew Research Center is doing a lot of interesting analysis on podcasts of late, and I wanted to bring in one of their analysts, Galen Stocking, to discuss his very interesting study about podcast guests. The findings are notable in what they can tell us about the podcast ecosystem, and also how the center used artificial intelligence to conduct the research.The transcript of audio is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. The video of this episode is also available.Flux is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, please stay in touch.Related Content* Podcasts are increasingly popular, why do people listen to them?* Why many podcasts and streamers who target male audiences aren’t helping their fans* Fox and CNN are having very different identity crises* Social media moderation standards are more about epistemology than technologyAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction07:24 — Many podcasts with guests routinely featured the same guests, especially ones affiliated with the Daily Wire14:33 — How Pew used AI to study podcast guests20:53 — Republican podcast listeners significantly trust their shows much more than Democratic podcast listeners25:35 — Breaking down the demographics of specific podcast formats29:22 — Trial and error with AI for podcast transcript analysisAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: There are a lot of data points in the research that you guys have been doing, both on the current study, and also in the larger context. So let's maybe start off to set the table with some of the larger context how popular are podcasts [00:02:00] and among other media sources in the research you guys have done?GALEN STOCKING: Podcasts are incredibly popular. There's been a number of different research studies looking at this and. If we look at the longtime horizon there's some research from Edison Research on Triton, Triton Digital that SE shows that from 2013 to 2023 there was an increase of from 12% to 42% of Americans ages 12 and older who said they'd listened to a podcast in the past month.So that's phenomenal growth. We also ask people in 2022 if they, I'm sorry, 2023, listen to podcasts in the last year and 49 percent of us adults said they had. So a very wide base of people who use podcasts in general and listen to them.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And what about the age range here? Is it how does that compare to other media?STOCKING: That's a great question. Actually it is, it does tend to be [00:03:00] more popular among younger Americans. So two thirds of Americans ages 18 to 29 say they've used a podcast or listened to podcasts in the last year that compares to 28 percent of those 65 and up. And Other groups are somewhere in the middle, but that does suggest that it even among older Americans podcasts have a foothold and people are listening to them.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and it's also the case that you know this sometimes with some technologies there tend to be some gender differences, but it's not as much with regard to podcasts, isn't that right?STOCKING: No, not a lot of gender differences and also really interestingly no partisan differences really.There's a 46 percent of Republicans or independently Republican say that they listened to a podcast in last year and 54 percent of Democrats say the same thing. So it's, that's pretty close about roughly half of people from both parties.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And then now in [00:04:00] terms of the research that Pew has been doing with looking at podcasts you guys break them down into different categories and, and that's pertinent to the further analysis that we'll be talking about.So, can you kind of just overview what those categories are? You do note that there are some differences in terms of guests, like, which shows do not have guests such as true crime et cetera. So in other words, sports, self-help relationship, entertainment, et cetera.STOCKING: So we, we looked at 434 of what we're calling top rank podcasts. Those are podcasts that charted regularly in the top 200 on either Spotify or Apple in a six-month period in 2000 22. And we took those podcasts, we looked at their episode descriptions and determined which podcasts had guests.And we found that overall three quarters of podcasts had guests at some point during all of 2022 and then another 28 percent or [00:05:00] so had guests at least half the time or more than 4 percent had, I guess, basically in every episode, but there are some differences in terms of the types of podcasts in terms of the areas that each podcast focused on. You look at sports podcasts. All sports podcasts had a guest on it, at least one episode. It's just a matter of how sports podcasts, at least among the top ranked podcasts tend to operate. They have guests on Entertainment podcasts also pretty high 85 percent.Politics was also pretty high, 78 percent. You contrast that with true crime podcasts which dropped down to 56 percent of those had guests on at least, in at least one episode. And so, and only five percent of them regularly had, had guests on. So, there's some just differences based on topics, just rounds it in what they're actually looking at in the podcast.SHEFFIELD: And generally it would seem I mean, If I were to make an inference, it would be that the shows that are more topical based tend to have guests more often. Would you agree with that?STOCKING: We didn't look at whether, so you can talk [00:06:00] about politics and not talk about present day politics. You could talk about sports and be more broadly focused. In fact, I can think of a couple of podcasts that are political podcasts that we looked at that were not based on present day.So I'm not sure if it's necessarily as topical focus, but we did look at top podcasts that had a news focus that that you know specifically tended to talk about news broadly defined whether it's politics or sports or crime or yeah Whether whatever and those podcasts definitely did seem to have guests more regular regularly so 89 of those news focus podcasts had at least one guest and 13 of them Broadcast on regularly, so it is much more and that's compared to non-news focused, which was only 3 percent of those, those podcasts.So yeah, it is much, it is more common on those news focused podcasts. I can't, topical is, is maybe not just about news, right? So it can, it can be more broadly defined. And so I'm cannot necessarily speak to that broader definition.SHEFFIELD: [00:07:00] Yeah. Well, and, and there is one little wrinkle in that is that the ones that the podcasts that were doing self-help and relationships, which, generally not as newsy or current events focused had a lot of guests that according to the analysis.STOCKING: Yeah. And often those guests are experts or other kinds of people that I think can bring some kind of diverse perspective on, on whatever they're talking about.Many podcasts with guests routinely featured the same guests, especially ones affiliated with the Daily WireSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. All right. And then, so one of the other. I think probably the most interesting finding in the study to me is that the person that a lot of the shows that did have guests, the episodes that did have guests, many of them were featuring the same guests across the podcast. So let's talk about that. If we could.STOCKING: Yeah. So. We found that there was a set of guests that did appear more regularly than than other guests. So, and when we looked in detail at who some of these, these guests are, we, pulled out the names of the [00:08:00] top 15 or so. They, they appeared on, some up to 40 episodes during that year and they tend to fall into two categories in terms of looking at the number of episodes that they appeared on.So they, they were either tended to be either sports commentators in some kind sports journalists or people who talk about sports in general or political commentators. So those two categories seem to be going on a lot of podcast episodes, but that doesn't, that's not quite the same as those who went on the greatest diversity of shows who went on, the most shows that actually draw drew from a pretty wide Pool in terms of the backgrounds of those individuals?There were, were everything from scientists to entertainment industry people, to journalists, to athletes. All across, across that, I'm sorry, not athletes. Not, that's my mistake.SHEFFIELD: Oh, okay. No problem. Yeah. And in terms of the political commentators one of the things that. That was interesting in that regard is that from a political guest standpoint, one of the [00:09:00] interesting findings was that many of the most frequent guests were individuals who were affiliated with various daily wire podcasts. And they were pretty overwhelming when you look at the most top ranked guests. So let's, can you talk about that a little bit?STOCKING: Yeah. One thing we found was that many of the hosts of podcasts that are published by the daily wire. tend to go on other podcasts that published by the Daily Wire as well as, as well as other shows in general. And so we found people like Ben Shapiro or Matt Walsh were often on other shows from Daily Wire as well as other shows in general.And, and because that they showed up in both the number, the highest number of shows that people, that guests appeared on, as well as the highest number of episodes that guests appeared on,SHEFFIELD: and this is kind of fits in the larger point, which is that you found that most of the people who were on podcasts had. You only one appearance but among those who had multiple appearances, they had many multiple appearances.And that was a, it's an [00:10:00] interesting finding in terms of, it, is this an artifact of network marketing? Is this a fact of people just being in demand? I mean, what's let's, I guess, tell us the numbers here. And then we can talk about perhaps. Your, your thoughts are on that.STOCKING: Yeah.So 78 percent of guests we found in all of these top ring podcast episodes in 2022 appeared on just one single episode. It's not one podcast, one single episode of one podcast. So that remaining group, that 22 percent breaks down into 10 percent appeared multiple times on the same podcast and 12 percent that appeared on multiple podcasts.So it is, of those who appeared most often More than once it is split, roughly 50 50 between appearing on multiple shows and multiple podcasts. And if you look at the At least from from my universe, the people that are on the greatest number of shows, there's more names that jump out that are outside of, a couple of different niche areas.So people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, who are, Elon Musk or Judd Apatow [00:11:00] or Anthony Fauci, who are from. Walks of life and are apparently on multiple podcasts potentially because of the stature that they have in, in, in society.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And it is, it's interesting, when you go through the list of the number of shows that various individuals appeared on that I mean, I'm just looking at the list right now that other than Neil deGrasse Tyson, He's literally the only person that I recognize as somebody who's overtly, a progressive individual.Whereas the number of shows that more right leaning personalities appeared on there, it's just a huge, I mean, I guess Judd Apatow, but he's more of an entertainment focused person. But from the right side of the aisle, we've got Elon Musk, we've got Matt Walsh, we've got Dave Rubin, we've got Jordan Peterson, Matt tbe James O'Keefe. So it's interesting to how that works, that there is appears to be somewhat of a, a dichotomy between left and right in terms of guests.STOCKING: [00:12:00] So we didn't actually look at the political orientation of either the, the podcast or, or the guests in, in any of this research.But what we did do, yeah, is create, do a network analysis of the guest because we wanted to see if people who are on one podcast. If if pockets tend to share the same guests, right, because I can give us some sense of if there are some some networks developing from that. And so when we did that, we found 5 groups. And the 1st group was podcast that tended to be news and media with either a centrist or center left. Orientation. And then the second group tends to be a lot of news and media and some other categories some other types of pockets as well, but from a more center, right perspective and. There were some podcasts that were shared over there, but the natural groups that emerged from looking at this, from looking at the guests that were shared, did segment some of those some of those podcasts into different groups simply by who they're bringing on.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And it is also, [00:13:00] Oh, go ahead.STOCKING: I would say another way to put that is, is that there's not much sharing between some of the top ranked center left pockets in that one group as compared to the guests that are brought on those. Podcasts in that center right group. There, there are some, there's some podcasts that are kind of more in the middle that, that tend to share guests with both categories, but there's a lot of I don't want to say isolation, but segmentation between those.Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Huh. Yeah. And, and then it should be pointed out as you guys note that 12 of the 18 most prolific guests were sports journalists or commentators. So, that's, that's and it's, it's an interesting thing to think about, because is this a function of that there are just not that many sports commentators who, people would want to have on their show, or is it just simply it's easier to be a guest to come and talk about sports. I don't know if you want to speculate that on that or not.STOCKING: Well, what I can, what I can say, though, is sports podcast tended to show up in a lot of [00:14:00] these other different groups.There was one group that was, fairly sports oriented, but like the dream on green show Was, which is, he's an athlete for go and say warriors was in a category that was not connected to sports was more entertainment focused. And so that suggests, and as other sports podcasts were, we're sharing guests with other podcasts that were in different categories.So something about the, either the guests that bring off that they bring on are people that other podcasts want to bring on or vice versa. But there's a lot of crossover with sports and, and other, other topical realms as well.How Pew used AI to study podcast guestsSHEFFIELD: Yeah, no, true. Okay. And then so I guess just in terms of how you guys looked at or did this data analysis, this is as far as I know, the first real large scale.Study of podcast guests that I have heard of. So can you talk about that a little bit of how that, how that worked and what you guys did with that?STOCKING: Yeah. So when we concluded our an earlier study that was looking at the [00:15:00] podcasts themselves, that we had these 450 or so podcasts that were ranked highly over the course of 2022, we recognize that one of the top formats o…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Libertarian oligarchs are trying to take over San Francisco — and the country Jun 07, 2024
    Show notes

    Episode SummaryFar-right extremism is on the rise in the United States and in many other different countries and for the most part, the individuals leading these movements are Christofascist. That is, they are Christians who have a fascistic and authoritarian viewpoint. But there is another subset. And while they are not as popular or well-known, they have lots and lots of money. Another interesting thing about this group is that its leaders market themselves as centrist or moderate, which is unusual on the surface, but it makes sense within the larger historical context of far-right libertarianism labeling itself as somehow apart from the conventional left and right paradigm. They’re at great pains to portray themselves as different from conventional Republicans, and yet they are hosting fundraisers for Donald Trump. Here at Theory of Change, we’ve covered libertarianism’s connections to 20th century fascism and some of the older history of libertarianism. And joining me today to talk about the more recent trends is Gil Duran. He is the creator of a newsletter called The Nerd Reich about San Francisco politics and right wing extremism.The transcript of audio is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. The video of this episode is also available.Related Content* Graphic “Political Ideologies by their Self-Described Priorities” mentioned in this episode* Graphic “Political Ideologies by Beliefs” mentioned in this episode* The failed promises of tech liberation and the “Californian Ideology” of the 1980s* The far-right origins of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency* Inside TESCREAL, the bizarre techno-religion that’s becoming an obsession of billionaires* The world’s richest people have realized they’ve destabilized the global economy, but rather than step back, they’re planning for apocalypse* How Elon Musk and so many other white rich men became a reactionary ideologues* Atheist libertarians and Christian fundamentalists have come together in their shared love of broken cognitive processesAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction08:39 — Balaji Srinivasan and the delusions of “Grey” libertarianism20:21 — How the Covid-19 pandemic shifted the political alliances of libertarian dogmatists27:29 — What investors have in common with conspiracy theorists34:26 — Right-wing oligarchs have made it clear they will suppress dissenting speech39:57 — Techbros love China's centralized authoritarianism47:37 — Balaji and his friends are ludicrous, but their vast wealth means they need to be taken seriously54:09 — Why right-wing oligarchs love to call themselves populistCover image: Far-right investor Balaji Srinivasan during an October 2023 podcast interview. Photo via screenshot.Audio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been corrected. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: This is a really bizarre and a strange movement that you've been writing about but before we get into it, I did just want to get into your background a little bit, for people to understand how you got interested. So right now, you are doing a newsletter that is called FrameLab. Why don't you tell us about that?GIL DURAN: Sure. FrameLab is a [00:03:00] newsletter that focuses on moral politics and language in politics, and it's very much rooted in the work of Dr. George Lakoff, the Berkeley cognitive scientist who's known for books like Metaphors We Live By and Don't Think of an Elephant, and we've been doing that for a few years. It's a Ghost-powered nonprofit powered newsletter. I also write a newsletter focused on San Francisco tech politics called The Nerd Reich, which focuses on the authoritarian nature of the politics emanating out of Silicon Valley and San Francisco these days.SHEFFIELD: The Nerd Reich. Yeah, it is the perfect description of what we're talking about here. And it's remarkable that the group of people that we'll be talking about here, they really think of themselves as doing something completely different. It's not part of any tribe. They even use different terms to describe themselves. They call themselves Greys as opposed to Blue and Red, of course, Democrat and Republican. But these people are basically [00:04:00] just secular Republicans. That's what they are.So, but you know, in in the nineties and the eighties and, let's say early two thousands, if you were a secular conservative or libertarian and you didn't know anything about political science or political ideologies. It was actually possible to think of yourself as a liberal in some sense because the Republican party was doing things that, I mean, they've always been crazy since the Goldwater days, but, they were doing stuff that I think everybody now, looks at it's just absurd, ridiculous. They were trying to censor rap lyrics, use the government to censor those, they thought The Simpsons was controversial. I mean, and they, were saying homosexuality was satanic, literally caused by demons, and so was mental illness.That's what they were saying back in those days. And so if you had any sort of rationality, you didn't want to be a part of it. [00:05:00] And it seems like a lot of these people, they really did think that they were on the left and, but as the Republican party got better at PR and communications, they sort of tamped those beliefs down out of the public.So they don't say those things. They still believe those things. And you get little flashes of it every now and again, like the Colorado. Republican party for pride month. They just released a video that, said God hates pride and you should burn pride flags. Like, so you still get, they obviously still believe this stuff.They just don't talk about it. But for the Silicon Valley, right, they think there's something different. Why don't you, why don't you talk about that? Like they love the word centrist, especially.DURAN: Yeah, definitely. We've have right now in San Francisco is a big push by tech venture capitalists and their acolytes to capture city government in one of the most progressive cities in the country and push it to the right by adopting a bunch of really right wing policies on [00:06:00] things like criminal justice on things like dealing with poverty and drug addiction. And they've been using words like centrist and moderate to mask this, but it's been increasingly untenable for them to do so, because in a lot of ways.It's really clear how they are not moderate. They actually have some very extreme political beliefs and affiliations and some extreme behaviors. For example, Gary Tan, who's the CEO of Y Combinator, a very famous startup accelerator in January tweeted, die slow at seven progressive members of the board of supervisors.Earned him a lot of local infamy, some really bad stories, bad headlines. He had to apologize, said he was just quoting Tupac lyrics. But I'd say that someone who's a moderate, And who's trying to take over the entire city government and who tweets die slow at, elected officials is obviously someone who's quite extreme.So, we're seeing this development where we're seeing this [00:07:00] movement emerge from San Francisco and Gary Tan is not alone. He's got a bunch of other people just like him here in the Bay Area and in Silicon Valley pushing for a real right wing drift in California's politics, particularly in Northern California.And so that's something I've been digging into over the past few months. I first got interested because I was the editorial page editor of the San Francisco Examiner and I've lived in the Bay Area most of my adult life. And for the first time ever, it seemed to me the politics here had become so weird, so oddly polarized especially driven by social media.And I couldn't quite put my finger on what was happening back in 2021, 2022. But in subsequent years, I have done a lot more digging and research and they have also emerged more fully. And I realized that this is all part of a kind of a, of movement a new emergent ideology, which goes by a few [00:08:00] different names but it's very much a right wing tech focused ideology in which the wealthy.People of Silicon Valley should have ultimate power over society and everything else should be pretty much subservient to their whims. Great example, for instance, Elon Musk, he's pretty much kind of the figurehead, the, major patrons of this, the patron saint of this movement. There are a lot of little mini Elon's though, here in San Francisco doing very similar things.And you may not have heard of them yet, but probably soon you will.Balaji Srinivasan's and the delusions of "Grey" libertarianismSHEFFIELD: Yeah. And well, and for two of those people they are uh, Mark Andreessen, who is a billionaire investor. And then another guy, I guess he's a, not quite a billionaire as far as I know. But maybe he is Balaji uh, Srinivasan, who is a crypto, a very big crypto advocate.And, both of these. guys are kind [00:09:00] of, they seem to be the ones who produce the most output for this, coterie of, oligarchs. And it's still not very good, I have to say. And they think they're so smart, but Srinivasan, he doesn't even know how to spell the word grey, that is spelled with a, with an E instead of an A but he thinks he's so smart and but yeah, like, I mean, and, Srinivasan, he wrote a book that's kind of, sort of, I think you describe it as a bit of a manifesto for these people called Network State.Do you want to talk about that book and what he's preaching in his, new cult manual?DURAN: Sure. Like I said before, there was something I couldn't quite put my finger on, but once I had time to do more reading, And to think I came across a book review by a historian named Quinn Slobodian called crack up capitalism.And this is a book that deals with this movement of tech zillionaires to create their own independent [00:10:00] territories that they can govern new cities, new states, new little countries, even digital countries. Just as you create a new currency with crypto, you create a new country with this new emerging crack, crack up capitalism.Ideology. Well, in that book, he mentions Balaji Srinivasan and the idea of the network state. And so after I read Slobodin's book, I read the network state and suddenly I had words and ideas to fill in the gaps. The thing that was missing there that I was perceiving was this underlying ideology. And you look a degree further and you find that all these people are connected with people trying to do this in San Francisco.So then it became very clear in a matter of just establishing the. Connections, which wasn't hard to do because these guys go online a bit a lot and they speak on long podcasts and they kind Of say the quiet part loud the network state idea is the idea that the united states is not long for this world.The United States is obsolete. He compared it in 2013, [00:11:00] Balaji Srinivasan did, to Microsoft, a company that is on the way out and new companies will emerge and take its place and in the place of countries like the United States and other traditional nations will be these smaller nations that are.Completely different and completely government governed by basically tech corporations and tech billionaires, basically company towns that will be sovereign and independent and have their own rules and laws. And there's actually a movement right now to create these different territories all around the world.There's a place called Prospera in Honduras, where they're trying to create a different. Their own little city on this island in Honduras called Rotan. There is a plan to build a city called Praxis in the Mediterranean, Afropolitan in Africa. There are projects in Asia. There's a planned 5 million person city for the United States.I think it's called Tolosa. So there are actually people trying to make a [00:12:00] move and build these cities inspired by the philosophy of Balaji Sreenivasan. He wasn't necessarily the originator of this idea. Before that, even, you had Peter Thiel funding a movement called Seasteading, which was the idea that we would create these little floating countries out on boats or oil rigs, et cetera, and that those would be countries in the middle of the ocean.But, no one wants to be trapped in the middle of the ocean with a bunch of annoying entitled and arrogant strangers. So now the movement has kind of moved away to doing it at sea, to doing it on land. And there's actually a City being proposed right now, about 60 miles northeast of San Francisco in Solano County in a very rural area called California forever, where a bunch of these connected tech billionaires like Mark Andreessen, who wrote the cover blurb for Balaji Sreenivasan's network state book.are investing in trying to build a new 400, 000 person city in Solano County. [00:13:00] So it's not just a theory on nerd podcasts anymore, or in weird, obscure books. It is actually something they're trying to do. And so what I've been doing is trying to Excavate and illuminate that there's an ideology behind what's happening here.SHEFFIELD: There's a plan and there's a hell of a lot of money behind it too.Yeah, well, and also there, there's also a precedent even further back than Peter Thiel that. Libertarians for decades have fantasized about moving into the state of New Hampshire and they call it the free state project in which they will take over the entire state because it has, it's very small and has a small amount of people.And well, it's just not worked at all, uh, because people don't want to vote for their ideas. And so, like that, I think that is the, difference is that essentially, these are just. Conventional sort of, libertarian dogma and, but they've realized they can't market it as [00:14:00] such anymore because if they did, people would run away immediately given how, I mean, and you can see that the libertarian party, I think, they're happy when they get 3 percent in a national for instance, so, Yeah.And but also this, idea though and you've, gone through and looked at the network state book and, one of the other things that's in there is that, that really does belie this, their, false claims that they're not part of, red or blue is that, Srinivasan literally is telling his acolytes, you need to get rid of the blue.You need to kick them out. You need to expel them and you need to ally with red and you need to essentially bribe the police and allow them to do whatever they want and turn them into your political and personal enemies. Security force, essentially, right?DURAN: Yeah, one of the, that was really kind of a shocking moment for me.I read the network state book and it seemed [00:15:00] a bit out there, but there was nothing in it. That was sort of off the rails. Shocking, then I started digging around Balaji’s and podcast appearances and lo and behold, I find this six hour podcast appearance in two segments, one four hour segment, one two hour segment from September of last year.And in it, he lays out this nightmarishly dystopian vision for what could happen in San Francisco if tech gets its way. And basically what he spelled out was a situation in which tech aligned citizens who've decided to do whatever tech wants, adopt grey t shirts emblazoned with logos. I think you said like a Bitcoin logo or a Y Combinator logo, different kind of corporate based grey tribes because the grey tribe and the greys buy up entire blocks of the city, start putting in grey politicians and [00:16:00] demanding t…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Why it matters that hedge funds are destroying local journalism May 13, 2024
    Show notes

    Episode SummaryLike many businesses right now, America’s news media industry is in a crisis. But what’s particularly dangerous about this crisis is that it’s one that most people don’t really know about it. A huge part of the reason why is that many journalists themselves, who are used to explaining how other parts of the world work, don’t seem to understand their own industry.There’s a lot that’s changed about the media business in the past few decades. The internet and the idea that “information wants to be free” have seriously disrupted the news industry of course. But there’s another trend that’s had very serious implications for journalism that is mostly unknown, and that is the rise of private hedge funds that have almost completely gobbled up America’s newspapers. While that might seem like just another boring stock market story, the conglomeration of newspapers has led to massive job cuts which have in turn led to a lot of important local news being missed or being covered incorrectly.The death of local news is a very serious problem for America and so today I wanted to talk about the situation with Margot Susca, she is the author of a new book called “Hedged: How Private Investment Funds Helped Destroy American Newspapers and Undermine Democracy.”The transcript of audio is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the complete text. The video of this episode is also available.Related Content* Black churches and independent media helped shape African-Americans’ political identities, and Republicans seem to be benefiting from their decline* How the far right built a political machine that's crushing the opposition* MAGA media outlets are showcasing the extreme policies a second Trump administration would enact* Today’s disinformation economy was built on the lying techniques of Big TobaccoAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction10:22 — What hedge funds are doing to local media16:51 — How corporate media consolidation facilitates misinformation20:55 — The importance of local news in civic education and de-radicalization32:06 — Newspapers didn't actually need hedge funds, they were profitable38:32 — The nonprofit news ecosystem: A glimmer of hopeAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been corrected. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: This is a complex topic, I think, and it's about finances and stocks, so [00:03:00] most people, when they hear those things, their eyes roll all the way back into their heads. But it's a serious issue. Maybe let's start with how did you get into it because it's not something that you were initially really paying a lot of attention to?MARGOT SUSCA: I think it's it's fair and I did try to bring some narrative elements to it, but I think it's a fair point. Initially when I started doing research for the book, it was because of a question that I was asked in an interview with NBC News “Think” program that, it was not long after the FCC had eroded some media cross ownership rules and I was asked by the producer of the show about, how did I know that, I was saying, gosh, this is so terrible for democracy that you could now own a TV station or a radio station and a newspaper in the same market.And I said, this is [00:04:00] terrible. And, this producer said, well, how do you, know it's as bad for democracy as you say? And I was thinking, theoretically, I knew as a politically economist of media, I had studied this, I had several dog eared works.From, scholars that I had, used over the years, but I didn't really have any data to back it up. So early in 2018, I started studying the newspaper chains. I started looking at some of the, largest publicly traded newspaper chains in the United States to look at layoffs.Specifically, I wanted to really kind of dig into the issue of layoffs. And over the course of the next several months I was doing a little bit at a time, it became very clear to me that the real story wasn't just the layoffs, but the real story, really, the institutional investors. These were the private equity firms that Controlled most of the shares of [00:05:00] the publicly traded chains but also by then, Alden Global Capital owned owned the digital first media news group newspaper chain.So it became very clear that the story wasn't just about the chains that I was studying, and it wasn't just about these kind of effects, which I thought layoffs was one of the effects, but it was really about These institutional investors. It was about these wall street firms, but I'm about to write a business book.I mean, this was not even a section of the paper that I would read. I would read the sports section. I would read the front section of the paper. When I was younger, I wouldn't even read the business section. So it's not, it's kind of funny to think that I would write. A book that was so heavy into, into financial issues.And I think because I had been a journalist, I was used to having to, research subjects. And, if you looked at the bookshelf that's behind me, it's filled with texts about private equity and hedge funds. And I was very lucky that. [00:06:00] One of my good friends from college is now at a hedge fund and he was one of the first phone calls that I made, which is, what am I, where do I look?What am I talking about? Where do I even go? And became a resource as I started. Looking at this subject. So, it is a huge issue and it is, as I, and over the next three years, it took three years and, unraveling, 20 years of what became 20 years of us securities and exchange commission documents.Bankruptcy court documents for a number of the chains some that still exist, some that were merged into others or folded. It became this, steady kind of unraveling of, kind of what had happened to newspapers over the last, 20 years and well, yeah,SHEFFIELD: And one of the things that you, do talk about in the book is that, the gobbling up of, newspapers and media by hedge funds. It is something that this is part of [00:07:00] a larger trend of private equity firms buying up other industries as well. And, so let's can we maybe talk maybe about the larger context of that? And when did all this stuff start happening and and maybe some of the other industries that have been affected this.SUSCA: Yeah, so I, I learned, in the course of doing the research that this was part of what other scholars have called this period of financialization, that this wasn't just newspapers weren't just the only things that became the targets, that newspapers became the targets of a certain trend.Group of private equity firms and hedge funds, but that there were other, other firms and other sectors that have been influenced and affected chances are, if you live in an apartment complex that it probably has a private equity connection if you're, at a major hospital chain, it probably has a private [00:08:00] equity or, have been, in a hospital.It's probably has a private equity connection. A nurse, a major nursing home company probably has a private equity connection. It is literally in almost every industry that you can think of. That has. Had, other researchers have studied its impacts that have had dire consequences linking it to the 2008 mortgage collapse that a very small number of firms have profited very handsomely off of the destruction of, really on the backs of average Americans.And what I was really interested in studying once it became clear over the course of. What was a couple of years of research was how this one institution that we have, which is the U. S. Newspaper market, which is meant to be a watchdog on all of these other government officials. And in some cases, industry has been really hamstrung by industries that were meant [00:09:00] to be a watchdog over.And that's, what's really the most troubling is if it's, if we are, left with private equity influencing, we're supposed to be the watchdogs, we, the one industry that's named in the U S constitution, and if this is supposed to be really the last frontier and with the amount of influence that I was able to trace, I think it's really troubling how much influence there is.In the U S chain market. and it grew over the time, I started doing while you wereSHEFFIELD: looking at it. Yeah,SUSCA: that's right. From early 2018 until, from early 2018 until early 2022. And I turned in, the final draft Alden global capital bought a chain, Chatham asset management bought a chain.And along the way there were all these communications with senators, you know I had foiled the u. s department of labor. There were a number of government agencies that were aware That were at least expressed some [00:10:00] concern. A supreme court case that you know dealt with the fcc so we essentially have what I say in the book's conclusion is a failure at every turn a regulatory a legislative failure as these chains just grew Larger and unchecked by a system that is meant to be.A guardrail for public for the public.What hedge funds are doing to local mediaSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. Well, and you mentioned some of these companies. Let's, maybe kind of talk about in detail about some of the specific ones. So, all the global capital, I think, is, the 1 that is often talked about by, if to, to the extent that people are aware of it, but for people who haven't heard of, Alden Global Capital, what is it and how much do they own?And generally what are their business practices?SUSCA: So Alden Global Capital owns the well now they own Tribune. So that is the Chicago Tribune. So the Orlando Sentinel. [00:11:00] And that deal went through, gosh, you're going to test me on some of the dates, I think that deal went through in late 2021, and they also, they first became owners of the Media News Group chain, sometimes used synonymously with Digital First which was a chain That includes the Denver Post and a number of other titles kind of regional newspapers.So that puts them, in charge of, two of, I think, the, most significant regional newspaper chains are, in the country. How many newspapers they own is sometimes up for debate and I would have to, I'm not sure how many it is. I'd have to double check on what that figure is.Of course, they own the Baltimore Sun, which they just sold, they just offloaded. To the person who owns Sinclair. And that was a hotly debated issue. So what their playbook [00:12:00] is, they started as part of Randall Smith, who was a hedge fund guy who was, I, found in a financial text was described as a profiting off of the misery of other people.And Heath Freeman, who's the head of Alden, is described as kind of Randall Smith's protégé. And in 2017, so often newspapers get described as this tired old business. In 2017, Ken Dockter, who's kind of a newspaper writes about newspapers for Neiman described and wrote about some leaked Alden financials where he reported on Alden making $170 million in profits from the operation of its newspaper chains.So I think it's important to note that whereas a publicly traded newspaper company, might have millions of shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ. When it comes to a hedge fund company, one of the things that happens is if you only [00:13:00] have, five people in that hedge fund, you get to share and split whatever profits exist among a very small group of investors and hedge funds like Alden Global Capital get to choose who they pick as their investors.And it's oftentimes there's a minimum buy in that hedge funds have for their investors. They don't get to just Like, you and I probably wouldn't get to, they have a very wealthy class of investors that get to be chosen. And yeah,SHEFFIELD: they're also not really regulated in almost in terms of who is allowed to become a member, whether it's foreign countries or, just individuals of any kind and other businesses.And they're not required to make disclosures. They are really this black box that is buying up America's information ecosystem that is not overtly reactionary. I mean, like, that's, that really is [00:14:00] the, quintessence of the problem is that, we're, there has been a profusion of, radical far right media. Like for right now, for instance, of course everybody knows about Fox News Channel, but now there's like five alternatives to Fox News Channel that are there even further to the right. So you've got Newsmax, you've got OAN, you've got Real America's Voice, you've got Right Side Broadcasting Network, you've got Salem Media or whatever they, Salem News Channel, I believe they call it.So there's been a profusion of these far right sources, and then at the same time, there has been kind of this massive concentration in by private equity firms of non overtly right wing media.And then they are cutting it to the bone at the same time. Like that's one of the other, that's one of the other practices of how they get all this money from their newspapers is they lay off thousands and thousands of people.SUSCA: Yeah. I mean, that's, it's almost inevitable. You can, the, patterns that emerge.It's immediate that the [00:15:00] layoffs come. And, I just was reading Gannett's annual report. Gannett is not owned by a hedge fund, but its largest shareholders are some of the world's largest institutional investors. One of its largest is BlackRock, which has like 10 trillion, trillion with a T, like Tom in assets under management.I mean, these firms have, assets under management that would rival some some countries, GDPs. I mean, these are huge, hugely wealthy, firms. And at the time of its merger with gate house, which was owned by a private equity firm, they employed 21, 000 people. When at the time, these two companies merged Thursday's annual report showed they employ now 10, 000 people.So in, the span of four years, they have hacked more than half. Of their staff, and largely a lot of those came in the newsroom. I mean, came from people who were doing the work of democracy, who were [00:16:00] covering school boards, who were covering, the kind of county commissions, mayoral races, covering legis state legislatures.I was reading another report. One in 10 state legislatures is covered by students today. I mean, that should shock everyone. I teach some very talented. Young people, but they're, many of them are still teenagers without that kind of institutional knowledge, to really understand, but into your point about the right wing media ecosystem and the void and this kind of lack of consideration of what happens.The Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald, its Spanish language counterpart, is owned by a different hedge fund, a New Jersey based hedge fund named Chatham Asset Management.How corporate media consolidation facilitates misinformationSUSCA: And I just saw a friend who just left the Miami Herald a month ago. And she's, she speaks Spanish and she was talking to me about the readership at [00:17:00] El Nuevo Herald is down dramatically because there have been, there has been no investment in El Nuevo Herald since Chatham has taken over at the Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald.So what's happening is that she lives in Miami and she said, what's happening is El Nuevo's readership is going. To this far right am radio ecosystem that is flourishing in Miami Dade County, and it is rife, she said, with miss with misinformation and disinformation. And she said, when it comes to issues of.LGBTQ issues and, again, we've talked about book banning and some of these other issues, it's just so alarmist and just rife with, factual inaccuracies…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    How a little-known cable channel for Roman Catholics is radicalizing the faithful May 06, 2024
    Show notes

    Episode SummaryProtestant televangelists have been infamous for decades for their lavish lifestyles and nefarious scandals. They’ve also been extremely successful at promoting far-right political viewpoints to people who just want to watch some devotional preaching.The radicalization of American evangelicalism is finally beginning to attract the journalistic and scholarly attention it deserves, but there is something very similar happening among some Roman Catholics in this country that has not be reported on enough. One of the prime culprits is a cable TV channel called Eternal Word Television Network which many people outside of EWTN’s elderly demographic have never heard of. While it may not be the most famous brand among political junkies, EWTN’s influence on Catholicism in America and around the world is substantial. By its own account, EWTN reaches 400 million households in more than 150 countries. It also owns a radio network with 380 affiliates, several news services, and the influential national Catholic Register newspaper.At its founding in 1981 EWTN wasn’t about mixing far-right political agendas with religious services. But in the years since, it’s gone all in for Donald Trump and a host of extremist Catholic figures who are bent on canceling anyone with progressive views in the church, even Pope Francis himself.Joining us in this episode to discuss is Molly Olmsted. She is a staff writer at Slate, and she wrote an extended article about EWTN that is definitely a must-read.This episode of Theory of Change aired previously on July 30, 2022. The transcript of the conversation is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the complete text. The video of this episode is available.Related Content* The Christian Right was a theological rebellion against modernity before it became a force for Republicans* Far-right Christians think they’re living in a Bible story, and that you are as well* In the Republican coalition, Evangelicals bring the votes, Catholics bring the brains* Charismatic Protestantism is reshaping faith among Latinos, and American politics as wellAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction and background on EWTN06:37 — The beginning of EWTN's shift to the far right09:40 — Raymond Arroyo, EWTN host and Fox News commentator12:16 — Once it shifted far-right, EWTN has been buying up other Catholic news sources16:51 — EWTN and the rise of far-right American Catholicism27:10 — The theological framework of being more Catholic than the popeAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been corrected. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So I gave a little intro about what EWTN is, but let’s maybe just go through a little bit of the history. So it started in 1981 and who was the founder of it? And how is it structured?MOLLY OLMSTEAD: Her name was actually—Rita Rizzo was the name she was born with, but most people know her as Mother Angelica.She was this poor girl [00:04:00] who grew up in Ohio, in this neighborhood that was ruled by the Black Hand, this mob basically. And it was just this really violent, intense childhood that was governed by a lot of illness and death. And it was a bit of a horrific childhood actually. So she eventually just sort of sought comfort in religion, that she found to be compatible with her experience of suffering, which has really formed a lot of the shape of EWTN as it exists today.It is one that really does expect a sort of intense form of the faith, one that’s slightly less forgiving. And so Mother Angelica, well before she was Mother Angelica, she became a nun. And she moved on down to start a monastery in Alabama. Initially her intent was actually to work with the black population in the South, which she never actually ended up doing, because she almost immediately, through her charisma and levels of charm, was able to start an entire media network.It’s something that she got hooked on quickly. I think she realized she was really good at fundraising. Really good at being able to capture people’s attention. And she really wanted to proselytize and spread her version of the faith.So when she became Mother Angelica, when she was head of the order, she actually was a woman who had a lot of people really devoted to her. And she amassed quite a bit of power through this charisma, despite the fact that she was technically a cloistered nun.SHEFFIELD: And one of her inspirations for this, for what she was doing, was Pat Robertson, the Protestant televangelist. Talk about that a little bit as, as far as that went, if you could.OLMSTEAD: Yeah. It is interesting to see how [00:06:00] Catholic media have sort of taken a lot of the lessons they learned from really influential Protestant televangelists, given that so much of the Catholic media branding is often to differentiate itself from Protestants.But in this case, we found that Mother Angelica really learned from them the tricks of the trade in some ways, and actually ended up hiring a bunch of people who came from this Protestant televangelist world who were able to help her figure out how to run her network.It’s funny, because I think there was also this charismatic Catholic movement that was happening at the time, which is very– it emphasizes speaking in tongues, that sort of dramatic thing, which we tend to think of as a Pentecostal thing now, but it, there is actually a history of this in the Catholic charismatic movement.And she got into that for a bit. She later sort of distanced herself from it as, so I think she thought of it as maybe something sort of silly she got into, but there’s so much of the sort of drama of Protestant televangelism that she was able to adopt and really speak directly to the listeners in a way that I think made her a lot more successful than maybe if the bishops, who are a bit stuffier, tried to do it on their own.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And for the longest time their programming, it was less dramatic than it is now. And it was not really political. I mean, it was primarily a lot of devotional stuff, so sermons and showing various ceremonies and speeches from various religious leaders.But eventually that kind of started to change over time. When do you think that they started becoming political? What was the first step, if you will? Was it bringing on the more news content do you think?OLMSTEAD: Yeah, there, it was a [00:08:00] bit of a slow shift in some ways, it’s one of those things where in retrospect, the broader context was also changing of how people thought about religion and politics, but there was a specific moment where she seemed to really snap, which is when there was a World Youth Day in the nineties. And the Pope was there, it was a big deal.And it was this huge moment for EWTN, because they were carrying the whole thing live. So they were really the ones who were sort of spreading this big, massive moment in which Catholics were coming from all over the world to the United States. So this was a time when Mother Angelica herself had been slowly turning away from her earlier, more loosey goosey, hippie moments and was becoming more personally socially conservative, which seemed to be a general trend she’d been on for some years at that point.But these stations of the cross which I’m sure is something that’s in every World Youth Day, it was being acted out by a troop of mimes, which is kind of funny. And then when the mime came out who was supposed to represent Jesus, it actually turned out that that mime was a woman, which I’m sure they did to sort of be really inclusive and a little bit different, reach out to all the young people.But Mother Angelica was horrified and she pretty much snapped. And she, in her show soon afterwards, gave this really incensed diatribe in when she just poked her finger at the camera and was like ‘You evil, liberal American church.’Because she really believed that the Catholic church, as it was represented by Rome, was true and good and doing the right, normal thing; that the Americans were derailing it to try and make it something really into gender politics [00:10:00] and just breaking all the rules. And so immediately she enacted all these strict rules for her own nuns.She had them wear a more traditional habit. She sealed them back up in their cloister, tightened the rules, and then every show after that was increasingly political in nature, where she was really going on about these sort of conservative– not fully partisan, but largely partisan politics. That was a big turning point.SHEFFIELD: Mm-hmm. And I guess one of the other stops along the way was their their creation of a weekly news show called The World Over with this guy named Raymond Arroyo. Talk a little bit about him and where he is in the Republican media landscape.OLMSTEAD: Yeah. Raymond Arroyo was kind of Mother Angelica’s anointed son. She seemed to really love him. He wrote her biography actually. He is their most inflammatory host by far. His weekly shows, if you watch any of them, it’s consistent, it’s all partisan politics.It is basically a Fox News segment that just has some Catholic elements sprinkled in, is how I would describe it. His guests come on are typically priests and other Catholic figures who are willing to talk about the same partisan politics.And Raymond Arroyo, who again, he’s sort of the face of the network or at least on the news side, now that Mother Angelica has died. He’s like the big face that still is out there. He himself is frequently on Fox News. He goes on Lara Ingraham’s show regularly. They have a segment together and sometimes he even hosts for her.So he is really keyed into the Fox News network. He’s just hyperpartisan to an extreme of the kind where he was downplaying the January 6th insurrection, of the kind where he’s always sort of [00:12:00] floating ideas about black violence, particularly when it comes to riots. It’s pretty extreme and it very rarely has anything significant to do with Catholic matters, as you would’ve expected from the early days of EWTN’s programs.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And, and the other thing about him as a media figure is the way that Fox has included him, is extremely different from how they regard other right wing television enterprises. So like they absolutely hate Newsmax. They absolutely hate OAN. They ban anyone who’s affiliated with those entities, but they see EWTN as a source of branding for them. And so that’s why they bring him on so extensively.And I have to say just on a irrelevant personal sidenote, he kind of looks like Peewee Herman, I have to say.OLMSTEAD: He does. And I think that’s part of the reason he hasn’t been more successful on Fox. I just think he doesn’t quite have those sort of tougher look. Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. But he’s, of course, not the only political person. They have several other ones, they’ve been expanding their news, quote unquote since his show came on the air, but EWTN has been just on, on a really expansionist impulse. They’ve been buying up these new services. And in the Catholic media, there traditionally had been really two kind of large enterprises that were kind of pushing and pulling against each other in a mostly friendly rivalry. But EWTN bought one of them. Can you talk about that dynamic a little bit?OLMSTEAD: Yeah. I mean, they really are eating up everything else, and you haven’t mentioned this, maybe we’ll get to it later, but huge international expansion as well. But there’s two, there were two major Catholic sort of news wire services. One that was a little bit– it wasn’t fully, it wasn’t progressive, but it was centrist, at least. Whereas there is a conservative one that is actually [00:14:00] free to the public and free for all dioceses who want to print news to be able to use.And part of the reason that it was free is because it really wanted to be able to sort of expand its perspective throughout the Catholic church. So I’m talking about Catholic News Service.SHEFFIELD: Well then of course there’s the National Catholic Register as well, and then not a news service, but yeah. Yes, those are some similar things.OLMSTEAD: Also have the National Catholic Register, whereas there is the progressive National Catholic Reporter, and those have that pull and push situation going on.But the rest of Catholic media is pretty much being gutted. And so what you have found yourself in a situation is where EWTN essentially dominates the entire Catholic media market, along with the properties that it owns.SHEFFIELD: Mm-hmm.OLMSTEAD: So now there’s virtually, I mean you have America magazine, which I think is largely for sort of the liberal intellectual types. And then Commonweal, which is also pretty progressive, but virtually–SHEFFIELD: Small circulation though.OLMSTEAD: Yeah. Small circulation. And then you have the National Catholic Reporter, which a lot of what it has was based, I mean it ran a lot of things pulled from the news wire service that is now being gutted. So we are ending up in a situation in which the vast majority of Catholic media is owned by EWTN and is conservative in nature.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. One of the things that I’ve always found interesting about Catholic media is that it gets dramatically less scrutiny compared to– I mean the mainstream media doesn’t really pay attention to religion generally, unfortunately. But at least every once in a while, they’ll run a report from someone, saying, oh my God, look at what these televangelists are doing. What is Jerry Falwell doing? What is Pat Robertson doing? Franklin Graham, et cetera.They might run those once in a while, but there’s literally no coverage of what’s happening in Catholic media.This [00:16:00] is a serious issue, because you quoted from some of the the viewers of EWTN. And they’re just, they’re so devoted to it, and it is warping their minds. So I’m going to quote from somebody that you quoted, it’s a 95 year old viewer of EWTN.She said: “I have trouble falling asleep since my husband passed away two years ago. In January of 2021, I scrolled through the television at midnight, I came across your channel and daily mass. I am so thankful to have EWTN in my home. It is so hard being alone. You have become my family.”And that’s, I’m sure, not a dissimilar perspective to a lot of their viewers. These are people that they just are looking for comfort, or religious devotion, or just something to speak to things that they care about, and it’s radicalizing them and, they don’t even know it.OLMSTEAD: Yeah. There was some, I don’t think I included all of this, but I heard that a lot of people were alienated from their parents because of QAnon, people who were alienated from their parents, because they got sucked into this sort of EWTN world. Because a lot of people watch it in retirement homes, or just in general it is attractive to a lot of older Catholics.And then you also have, I talked to one professor who told me he teaches at a Catholic university. And he told me a lot of his students, EWTN had been sort of their big Catholic media source as well. So you’re seeing it not just with the older people, but with a huge number of these intensely fanatic young Catholics as well. And it’s quite influential.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. They’ve been having some conflicts with the pope recently. How does the church take their recent radicalization? It’s not, it’s not owned by the church.OLMSTEAD: Right. Yeah. It is not owned by the church. Actually, this is another thing I think I couldn’t get into, but Mother Angelica– EWTN was about to undergo a visitation from the church, which essentially means [00:18:00] they were they were going to investigate the problematic things about it.And she was worried the bishops were going to then take it over because technically, as a religious sister, she could not directly disobey the–SHEFFIELD: She’s an employee of the church.OLMSTEAD: She’s an…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Newspaper classified ads were the original social network and dating app Apr 29, 2024
    Show notes

    The past two episodes of Theory of Change have focused on dating and sex, and I wanted to end the miniseries with a conversation that brings in the topic of media as well. Not just because the next episode arc we'll be doing is about the state of journalism, but also because media have played an important role in how people meet and form connections.It seems forever ago now in 2024, but for many years, one of the ways that people went on dates was through a local newspaper and their personal ads. You’ve likely heard of them, even if you never used them: “Single white female seeking man for tennis and deep conversations.” There were many other types of classified ad as well: “Got a trip to Spain coming up? Learn Spanish from the comfort of your own home with our great tutors!” And so on. Millions of short messages like these were the original social media feeds for communities, the place to figure out what the regular people around us were up to and what they were looking for.And as it happened, some people were looking for sex workers. But strippers, escorts, and other such professionals weren't allowed to advertise in the respectable daily newspaper, so instead, they turned to their local alternative newspaper. In their heyday, alt-weeklies, as they were often called, were an industry that brought in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. They also produced a lot of great journalism—and the first real challenge to the bland and cowardly approach that even today dominates so much of mainstream media.The story of the alternative weekly newspaper and how the former “counterculture” became the mainstream is one that Sam Eifling and his co-producers tell in a new podcast for Audible called “Hold Fast: The Unadulterated Story of the World’s Most Scandalous Website” that’s definitely worth a listen.The transcript of our conversation is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the complete text. The video of this episode is also available.Photo montage: Flux. CC by SA.Theory of Change is part of the Flux Media network, please support our work and get more content like this by subscribing on Patreon or Substack.Related Content* Dating in the present age has become quite the mess, how did it happen?* How the Christian right is using sex to sell religion* CNN and Fox are having very different identity crises* Editorial cartooning is under threat in the age of the meme* The rise of Donald Trump reshuffled the right-wing media businessAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction07:27 — How Jim Larkin and Mike Lacey’s New Times revolutionized newspaper classified ads and later online adult ads19:31 — How dating and hooking up via text advertisements worked30:09 — Alt-weeklies were the first real challengers to the false promise of “objective” news reporting36:24 — Before the “counterculture” won, libertarians thought they were on the political left47:04 — How Backpage replaced alt-weeklies for sex workers trying to be safe52:47 — The bipartisan prosecution of Backpage’s founders01:05:57 — The personal story of a john named John01:14:41 — ConclusionAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been corrected. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: I think a lot of people have never heard of Backpage at this point, whether being too young for it or not being [00:04:00] interested in those types of services. So why don't we start off by describing what Backpage was, and then we can get to where it came from.SAM EIFLING: Sure. The simplest way to describe Backpage is that it was a knockoff of Craigslist, like a pure just, straight up Craigslist knockoff that eventually, because of the attitudes and past sort of business expertise of the owners, really became the go to red light district for sex ads on the internet for the better part of a decade.It was a company that grew out of a company I used to work for. It was a newspaper company called New Times Inc. When when I started working there in the early two thousands, it was the biggest chain of alternative news weeklies in America. So these papers you would get, they were free. They were paid for by advertising display ads, which are usually what companies take out and classified ads, which are what individuals mostly take out.Classified ads could be [00:05:00] selling your couch, selling your car, a help wanted ad. And part of the New Times model for a long time was to welcome and encourage ads that had a sort of a grey zone of sexuality, right? So it could be massages, it could be escorts. I'm sure there were working prostitutes advertising at the Backpages, Backpages of New Times papers and probably helping to pay my salary and that of other reporters. It really wasn't our business to focus on at the time. But as that model fell apart, as Craigslist came in, especially, and started disrupting the entire online classified ecosystem, and these papers started wondering how are we going to get the money to pay for the journalism, executives at New Times came up with the idea of essentially running the same style of ads that they ran in the papers online in a Craigslist like format.And over the years, that became increasingly [00:06:00] a lightning rod for attention and negative attention, especially when it came to people who would go to the media or appear in in different venues and say: “I was trafficked via Backpage. Someone held me against my will and advertised me as a sort of basically a prostitute or at that point, really a victim of a crime of sex trafficking on Backpage.”And with a few of those accusations out of millions and millions of ads, there became this groundswell. The groundswell led to activism. The activism fed into political pressure. Political pressure led to the arrest of the main characters in our show, Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin. Years ago it started this chain of, alternative news weeklies, and now we're being arrested by the FBI and charged with essentially facilitating prostitution at probably the largest scale that's ever [00:07:00] been, accused in the history of the U. S. government. They were basically saying, you guys are, in the biggest pimps in the history of of America.And they were thrown in jail and taken to trial. And so that's sort of where we picked up is, the beginning of the show is the arrest of, of Lacey and Larkin, and by the end we're, we're at a, a federal trial to hear, to hear the government make their case against, against Backpage and the Backpage executives.How Jim Larkin and Mike Lacey's New Times revolutionized classified ads and weekly newspapersSHEFFIELD: Yeah, no, it's a, and it's a story that. It's a, it's a really important story more than you would think. I think for people who, like, Oh, I would never place a adult classified ad, or, I would never go to a prostitute or whatever.There's, there's some, a lot of real implications to all this, both where they came from, and, and the case against them.So let's maybe step back then to the beginning here. In 2024, it's like, It seems a world removed in many ways, this industry that these, these guys really kind of started [00:08:00] and of alternative newspapers.And a lot of this, I mean, it really got started with the village voice out of out of New York City in the 1950s, and then kind of, there were a bunch of, Sort of self styled underground newspapers that were kind of run by anti war college students primarily in the 60s and 70s. And then it became a business with these guys.So, why don't you talk, tell us about that and what they were doing. What they, what did they discover that people had missed certainly.EIFLING: Yeah, it is. it's to me, I'm born, I think age is a big part of this. So I can just say born in 1980.And when was a college student thinking about getting into newspapers or journalism at all, newspapers were still really king newspapers and magazines. And I think a lot, as a lot of did probably in that age. before there were blogs, before there were podcasts, you might think about starting your own paper, [00:09:00] right?It was, it was something you could, you could write, you could print, you could, you could report, you could have a voice, you could raise hell and distribute it. And that was a model that had been around for a long time.In the case of the Village Voice, it started in the mid fifties in New York and sort of set the template, right? Which was a paper that was adversarial to the entrenched power structures in the city, including the existing media, which I think was a big part of what, I anybody now who, gets or a lot of I don't know how many vlogs are picking apart the mainstream media.Well, that used to be the role of these, kind of insurgent newspapers and news gathering organizations.But what, what made New Times different, what made New Times successful was that found a business model to go with it. So our, our really our protagonist the show is a guy named Mike Lacey. Mike Lacey was a college student at the at Arizona State University in the early 70s, and he and a bunch of friends put together this anti Vietnam War protest paper. [00:10:00] At first, it was a collective. It was chaotically run. I'm sure with the ideals of the day in mind as they set the business structure, which was basically no business structure at all.And when I worked at New Times, very famously, Mike Lacey would talk about having donated plasma in the early days to keep the paper going right? These guys were broke. They're having fun. They're raising hell, but they Jim Larkin. Who was not a journalist, but who really enjoyed journalism and appreciated good journalism approached the paper sometime it started and said, look, I think you guys have a really good thing going. I Also think you don't know what you're doing on the business side I have a lot of ideas.And essentially Larkin didn't invent this model But I think he ran it very well, which was to sell a lot of small ads in the paper that maybe were coming from businesses sort of, they were selling these ads to businesses that were too small to advertise in the in the big [00:11:00] daily, which was the Arizona Republic in phoenix.So if you ran a very small business, or if you were a one person, if you were like a person giving guitar lessons, you were a handyman, or you were you were the kind of seamstress who would patch up people's clothes. Like this is the kind of stuff that, you know, you probably wouldn't place an ad in the daily, might just flyers around your neighborhood, but here comes this paper. The space is cheaper. You can buy small ads and you can participate in the community through your advertising, right?You, you become, you have a platform effectively. If you buy a little piece of this paper, the genius of classified ads, the absolute, the key to classified advertising. They're really two one, they are really small, but because they're small, you can sell them basically at a premium on the page. So if one page of advertising holds just one ad, that ad costs a lot of money.[00:12:00]But you have holds 200 ads collectively, those 200 ads add up to a lot more money than you would charge for the one. It's more work to put them in and also just know, it's, it's it's like any kind of, like, parceling up of a, of real estate, right? The smaller you cut it, the more you can sell, the more total sales value you're probably going to get out of it. So what happened in these papers, New Times especially, but The Voice did this, they could run literally thousands of these ads.And these ads were run by so many people from so many walks of life that, No one advertiser really had editorial say over the paper, which was key. If you had one big ad and one big advertiser, that company, and it was always a company at that point, that company would expect to have some leverage against paper.And they would. And dailies they did, anywhere, anywhere a big advertiser is funding a lot of the work of a journalism organization, they have a lot of say whether whether [00:13:00] the journalists even realize it or not, right? The owners make way for for a big advertiser. If there are thousands and thousands of advertisers, if it's that democratic, that collective and that many people are coming in, you can run a lot of material in the paper that could potentially piss a lot of them off.But be fine because if 10 people walk out, you don't really right? There's so many people advertising that it effectively creates this way of community support, financial support for a newspaper, a news venture, and New Times ran that model very well. They ran it in in Phoenix, and then eventually they saw other weekly papers around the country.This is in the early, mid nineties. Actually, I guess, yeah, the early, mid nineties is really when they started to expand and they saw other papers that maybe were doing good journalism that had the, had the instincts to cover their city really aggressively and and to connect with a community of readers, but maybe they didn't have the business down.And so [00:14:00] gradually New Times started buying up these papers. They went to Denver, they went to Miami. They went to San Francisco and where they went, they would buy a paper that maybe wasn't making as much money as it could. They sort of install their software, a way of thinking of it. Their, their business--SHEFFIELD: Their formula.EIFLING: Their formula, which they took lot of s**t for over the years, like having a formula, but they became very financially successful. And through that through a zillion teeny tiny ads, right, from people every walk of life, walking, walking into the newspaper with up to the ad window, sometimes dictating an ad, sometimes having it written down they were making at the time I guess 2005, they eventually merged the Village Voice Company and New Times.And when those two companies merged, they created a company that had Even though Craigslist was eating into their model at that, at that stage, then it combined [00:15:00] revenue of almost 200 million a year.It was a giant And that was off of, I think, 17 papers. And there was big money to be made, and a lot of. Bare journalism that just would not have any place, in many cases, at the Daily Papers because it was just too it was too unfriendly to kind of the, the ethos that most papers maintain to be to be the kind of like network TV of, of their city, right?These papers could be HBO or something more aggressive, something a little more adult, something a little more risk taking. And for a lot of journalists that made an attractive place to go try to start a career.SHEFFIELD: For people, I think, especially who kind of built. This alt weekly model. They, and the people who worked in it, at the, at the high level, I don't think they really understood that how abnormal this was and that this was a moment in history that was so [00:16:00] completely unique.Nothing like that had ever really been done before. And and it was fleeting with, with the rise of a Craigslist and, and social media.EIFLING: I think. I think that's right. I think we got a good, I know, 40 year run out of it, which I was lucky enough to grab a little piece of and a lot of my co creators too, we were, we were of a generation that look backward, enjoy the heyday, really the peak. We were there at the financial peak of alternative weeklies and maybe the cultural peak.And I think as the internet atomized journalism in different ways. The cultural need for a paper that did the things that those papers did also kind of dispersed, right? Like, they were very aggressive about covering music and culture and well, I mean, that's Ti…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Previous 1 9 10 11 12 13 23 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters

    1

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters Business
    WSJ Your Money Briefing

    2

    WSJ Your Money Briefing Business
    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task

    3

    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task Business
    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women

    4

    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women Business
    Slate Money

    5

    Slate Money Business
    In The Dark – The New Yorker

    6

    In The Dark – The New Yorker Business News
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights