Citations Needed

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

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

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

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

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

"According to the Bipartisan Policy Center," "a recent study by the Concord Coalition disagrees," "One review of your budget by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says." We've seen these seemingly benign Official Sounding sources hundreds of times—from presidential debates to 60 Minutes to countless articles in The Washington Post and The New York Times. But what the average person can't reasonably know is that these organizations—Bipartisan Policy Center, the Concord Coalition, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and PR projects like "The Can Kicks Back" and "America Speaks"—are all veiled front groups for a single, far-right billionaire whose entire life mission was to privatize social security, medicare and other entitlement programs under the auspices of fighting a so-called "deficit timebomb." For decades, a web of Pete Peterson-backed front groups—often funded in concert with other like minded billionaires—has used the faux neutrality of think tanks, institutes, and academia to launder "anti-deficit" messaging for American pundits, reporters, and politicians, entirely capturing the narrative around deficits and their alleged pending destruction of society as we know it. This week, we explore the origins of Pete Peterson's austerity propaganda machine, his web of influence, how he helped co-opt both conservative and liberal knowledge production, and how he and spent hundreds of millions of dollars to undermine what little liberal government the United States has left. We are joined by David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect.

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

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

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

Since the rise of Black Lives Matter and a broader cultural awakening in the United States of just how wildly out of whack, cruel and hyper-punitive our criminal legal system is, modest reforms began to emerge across the United States. The lowest hanging fruit for reforms was to get rid of or radically reduce pretrial cash bail: a system that simply exists to punish the poor for being poor. 20 percent of people in the United States currently incarcerated––76 percent of those in local jails––have not been found guilty of any crime, they are simply awaiting their trial and cannot pay their bail because they cannot afford it. One 2015 study found that people in jail had a net median income of less than $5,000 a year, and are overwhelmingly Black and Latino. Put simply: bail exists not to protect the public, it exists to punish the poor for being poor. In response to this jarring injustice, some states began instituting modest reforms, reserving bail for so-called "violent crimes," but requiring judges to consider people's income when setting bail for other offenses. A number of cities across the country began to see reductions in the number of people in jail pretrial. Unsurprisingly, reform has been met with swift and vicious reaction from pro-carceral forces. Police unions, sleazy politicians, rightwing think tanks, and conservative and liberal media alike prey on propagandized public fears to attack reforms as ushering in a new dystopian era of Escape from New York lawlessness. To do this, among other disingenuous tricks of emotional blackmail, they've reanimated one of the oldest in the book, Willie Hortonism: seeking out anecdotal cases of a formerly jailed person who goes on to commit a crime, demagoguing this one example often using racist tropes, and exploiting the media feedback loop to pushback and curtail movements for reform. On this episode, we're joined by Color Of Change's Clarise McCants and Brooklyn Defender Service's Scott Hechinger to highlight various tropes the media use to push back against prison reform and how to fight back against their playbook of fear and racism.

Over the last 20 years, the topics of substance use and treatment have become the stuff of televised entertainment: heart-wrenching stories of desperation and redemption, of suffering and survival. Shows like A&E's Intervention and VH1's Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew, which depict people with substance use disorders and their experiences navigating recovery in rehab, have gone a long way to shape our common narratives about what addiction is and how it should be addressed. The central conceit of these shows is that anyone struggling with addiction must follow the same road to recovery: stay at a for-profit treatment facility for approximately one to three months, requiring, among other things, complete abstinence from drugs and/or alcohol, no matter how excruciating or dangerous. While these methods are effective for some, they're profoundly harmful for others. In promoting this one-size-fits-all approach to treatment—which can be accompanied by punitive and often humiliating experiences—these shows reinforce techniques and philosophies that are not only scientifically debunked, but also have the potential to endanger people's lives. Meanwhile, they serve as an advertising platform for these for-profit rehab centers themselves, many of which have been shown to be prohibitively expensive, ineffective, and, in some cases, deadly. On this episode, we examine the pseudoscience, myths, and fundamentally quasi-christian self-help ideology promulgated by this genre of television; the ways in which these shows exploit addiction for the sake of story; and the relationship between rehab television and the multibillion-dollar for-profit treatment industry. Our guest is journalist and author Maia Szalavitz.

From its inception as agriculture trade paper in 1843 to the present day, The Economist has provided a gateway into the mind of the banking class. Something of an anomaly in the publishing industry, The Economist is not quite a magazine, not quite a newspaper; aspirational in its branding but bleakly limited in political ambitions; brazenly transparent in its capitalist ideology, yet inscrutable in its favorably spinning for American and British imperialism and racism. It is publication owned by the wealthy for the wealthy and advertises itself as such. Its only moral pretense: a long history of championing what it calls "liberalism, "a notoriously slippery term that, in The Economist's world, views freedom to profit and exploit labor as interchangeable with the freedom of religion, press and speech. As such, examining The Economist's history, its connection to British and American banking interests and intelligence services, can tell us a great deal about the narrow focus of Western, and specifically British notions of "liberalism." The promotion of capital flows over justice, enlightened imperialism over self-determination, abhors overt racism while promoting more subtle forms of race science and colonialism, all along easing the conscience of wealthy white readers that want to feign concern about human suffering but who have everything to gain by doing absolutely nothing about it. On this episode, we are joined by Alexander Zevin, author of Liberalism at Large: The World According to The Economist.

Everywhere we turn, local media — TV, digital, radio — is constantly telling us about the scourge of crime lurking around every corner. This, of course, is not new. It's been the basis of the local news business model since the 1970s. But what is new is the rise of surveillance and snitch apps like Amazon's Ring doorbell systems and geo-local social media like Nextdoor. They are funded by real estate and other gentrifying interests working hand in glove with police to provide a grossly distorted, inflated and hyped-up vision of crime. One of the major factors fueling this misconception is the feedback loop where media — both traditional and social — provide the ideological content for the forces of gentrification. Police focus their "law enforcement" in low income areas, local news reports on scourges of crime based on police sources, then both pressure and reinforce over-policing of communities of color, namely those getting in the way of real estate interests' designs––All animated by an increase in police-backed surveillance tech like Amazon's Ring. On this episode we will break down these pro-carceral interests, how they create a self-reinforcing cycle of racist paranoia and how local "crime" reporting plays a role in creating this wildly distorted perception of "crime." We are joined by two guests: Sarah Lustbader, senior legal counsel at The Justice Collaborative, and Steven Renderos, co-director of MediaJustice.

The last two decades have seen the release of a number of explicitly Christian movies which tell stories of believers navigating the trials and tribulations - both literal and figurative - of a perceived non-Christian world. In this universe, followers of Christ are constantly under siege by secularists, swarthy Muslims, gay and trans agenda-pushers, feminists and a hostile, out-of control federal government. While the media usually lumps these movies into a generalized "faith" category they are best viewed not as earnest meditations on religion and "faith," but a political project on behalf of the Republican party, with a distinct protestant flavor. Today, we are going to focus on the biggest and most influential players in the "Christian cinema" space: production company and distributor PureFlix and Affirm, a subsidiary of Sony Pictures Worldwide. Pureflix and Affirm embody the core ideological tropes of the U.S. conservative base: a promotion of US militarism, anti-Muslim racism, pro-capitalist messaging, hostility to LGBTQ populations, anti-Semitic Zionism and a runaway contempt for women. On this episode, we'll discuss how the Christian cinema industry is not just low-budget schlocky propaganda that's fun to dunk on (though it certainly is), but something more deliberate, sinister, and corrosive––a state-subsidized, far-right messaging machine for American reactionaries and imperial interests. We are joined by author, artist and filmmaker Frank Schaeffer.

"'Right-to-work' means freedom and choice," a Boston Globe op-ed explains. "As housing costs rise, some people are choosing to live on the road instead," a Fox Business headline states. "If your insurance company isn't doing right by you, you should have another, better choice," reads Joe Biden's campaign platform. We're told repeatedly that "freedom of choice" is essential to a robust economy and human happiness. Economists, executives, politicians, and pundits insist that, the same way consumers shop for TVs, workers can choose their healthcare plan, parents can choose their kids' school, and gig-economy workers can choose their own schedules and benefits. While this language is superficially appealing, it's also profoundly deceitful. The notion of "choice" as a gateway to freedom and a sign of societal success isn't a neutral call for people to exercise some abstract civic power; it's free-market capitalist ideology manufactured by libertarian and neoliberal think tanks and their mercenary economists and media messaging nodes. Its purpose: to convince people that they have a choice while obscuring the economic factors that ensure they really don't: People can't "choose" to keep their employer-provided insurance if they're fired from their jobs or "choose" to enroll their kids in private school if they can't afford the tuition. In this episode, we examine the rise of "choice" rhetoric, how it cravenly appeals to our vanity, and how US media has uncritically adopted the framing--helping the right erode social services while atomizing us all into independent, self-interested collections of "choices." We are joined by Jessica Stites, executive editor of In These Times.

Since the early 2000s, a spate of forensics-focused TV shows and films have emerged on the pop culture scene. Years after Law & Order premiered in the '90s, shows like CSI, NCIS, and The Mentalist followed, trumpeting the scientific merit of analyzing blood-spatter patterns, reading facial and bodily cues, and using the latest fingerprint-matching technology to catch the bad guy. Yet what these procedurals neglect to acknowledge is that many of these popular forensic techniques are deeply unscientific and entirely political. Spatter pattern-matching, firearms analysis, hair analysis, fingerprint and bite mark analysis — they're all mostly bullshit with little scientific merit. Despite this, forensics have helped contribute to the wrongful convictions of thousands of people: a storytelling aid, prosecutorial smoke and mirrors, a courtroom PR tool to lend scientific verisimilitude to what is very often just circumstantial, hunch-based police work. On this episode, we break down how popular culture depictions of forensics helps mislead viewers — and by extension jurors — into thinking forensics are science that proves guilt rather than what they really are: slick marketing collateral to help prosecutors convict someone they already think is guilty for other, nonscientific reasons. We are joined by Aviva Shen, Senior Editor at Slate.

In Ep. 90, "How Western Media's False Binary Between 'Science' & Indigenous Rights Erases Native People," we explored the ways capital-S "Science" has been wielded by those in power to erase Native people and culture around the world. Our discussion of the Thirty Meter Telescope "controversy" at Mauna Kea in Hawai'i drew much online debate but instead of talking about the activists there, we thought we'd talk to them––specifically those running the Puʻuhonua o Puʻuhuluhulu movement media team, Nā Leo Kākoʻo, who are working 24/7 to push back against colonialist narratives and hacky, racist local reporting. We are joined by Mikey Inouye, a filmmaker and co-chair of the Honolulu branch of Democratic Socialists of America, and Ilima Long, media coordinator for Nā Leo Kāko'o and member of Huli, a non-violent, direct action organization that is one of the leaders on Mauna Kea.

In this News Brief, we discuss the battle over whether or not to call what happened in Bolivia a "coup," and the problem with the always popular, slippery evocation of "agency."

"A preponderance of foreign elements destroys the most precious thing [a nation] possesses - its own soul," wrote the politically-influential Immigration Restriction League in early 1919. "The great hotbeds of radicalism lie in the various colonies of alien workmen," declared The New York Times on January 5, 1921. Warning of the "menace" posed by "millions of intending immigrants of the poorest and most refractory sort," The Saturday Evening Post insisted days later that "the character of those who have been coming to us from overseas has unmistakably deteriorated." While anti-Chinese and anti-Asian laws had been on the books for decades, the passing of the Immigration Act in October 1918––and later the Immigration Act of 1924–the United States ushered in a new era of racist, anti-left, anti-immigrant sentiment. By the early 1950s, new laws upheld a racist ranking system for "desirable" ethnic groups, making it easier for the U.S. to deport people suspected of being Communists, anarchists and other radicals. All of which happened in parallel with the rise of major media tropes of immigration reporting; tropes that––with varying degrees of subtlety––still exist today. On this episode - recorded live at Cornell University's Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art in Ithaca, New York on October 25, 2019 - we highlight a number of these tropes, including the media's rampant association of immigrants with criminality and terrorism, deserving refugees vs. undeserving migrants; frequent references to immigrants as invading hordes or vermin infestations; appeals to allegedly race-neutral "law and order" sentiment; and today's right-wing open border panic. We are joined by Cornell professor Shannon Gleeson.

"As technology shifts more layoffs loom at tech companies," Reuters tells us. "PepsiCo is laying off corporate employees as the company commits to millions of dollars in severance pay, restructuring, and 'relentlessly automating'," notes Business Insider. "Apple's dismissal of 200 self-driving car employees points to a shift in its AI strategy," CNBC declares. For decades, mass layoffs, factory closures, and industry shifts––from the auto industry to journalism to banking––have often been presented by American media, not as the moral choices of greedy CEOs private equity and hedge fund managers looking to extract wealth for them and their shareholders, but instead the unavoidable result of nebulous, ill-defined––but entirely inevitable–– "automation." After all: C-level decision makers, billionaire media owners, hedge funds, and private equity firms had no choice. No one is to blame, it's simply the way it is. The logical, albeit cruel, end result of specific policy choices, all decided by powerful moral agents over the past 30 years, is presented as a force of nature, something outside our control, unstoppable and immutable. On this episode, we examine how capital has, for centuries, blamed layoffs and cost cutting on inscrutable developments in technology and efficiency models out of their control, what this pat excuse hides, why it's sometimes true and sometimes not, and and why the media shouldn't take claims of CEOs' hands being forced by "market changes" at face value. We are joined by Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, and writer and researcher Peter Frase.

"Building a wall won't save America's crumbling middle class," Elizabeth Warren tells us. "Sanders healthcare will raise taxes on the middle class," a CNN headline reads. "There' war on the middle class," a Boston Globe editorial laments. The term "middle class" is used so much by pundits and politicians, it could easily be the Free Space in any political rhetoric Bingo card. After all, who's opposed to strengthening, widening, and protecting the "middle class"? Like "democracy," "freedom," and "human rights", "middle class" is an unimpeachable, unassailable label that evokes warm feelings and a sense of collective morality. But the term itself, always slippery and changing based on context, has evolved from a vague aspiration marked by safety, a nice home, and a white picket fence into something more sinister, racially-coded, and deliberately obscuring. The middle class isn't about concrete, material positive rights of good housing and economic security––it's a capitalist carrot hovering over our heads telling us such things are possible if we Only Work Harder. More than anything, it's a way for politicians to gesture towards populism without the messiness of mentioning––much less centering––the poor and poverty. This week we are joined by Jane McAlevey, a union organizer, scholar and Senior Policy Fellow at the University of California, Berkeley's Labor Center.

"Science and religion fight over Hawaii's highest point," one CNN headline puts it. "Desecrating sacred land or finding new frontiers?" BBC asks. "Science, Interrupted: Mauna Kea Observatories 'caught in the middle,'" Pacific Business News writes. When tensions arise between native communities and the so-called "pursuit of science," more often than not Western media presents this point of conflict as a symmetrical and simplistic case of "science vs. superstition." Science is framed as a morally and politically neutral quest for truth––an objective and innovative good that will unequivocally benefit humanity. But Western "science"––despite its rank-and-file advocates' often best intentions–– has historically been used as the public relations vanguard of colonialism and white supremacy. A Trojan Horse presented as ideologically neutral, followed by an outpouring of exploitation, industry and the erasure of native peoples––both culturally and physically. While everyone can agree scientific research and progress are good things, the institution of "science" as such––from North America to Australia to Africa to Palestine-–has a long history of serving on the front lines of white, capitalist expansionism. This week we are going to discuss this history, how anti-colonial scientists are pushing back against these forces, and how we can expand human knowledge and understanding without weaponizing the enterprise to serve the interest of power. We're joined on this episode by Nick Estes, Assistant Professor in the American Studies Department at the University of New Mexico.

"Israel says EU's response on Iran recalls Nazi appeasement," reported Reuters. "The Biden Plan for Appeasement," spat a recent editorial in The New York Sun. An editorial in The Washington Examiner pleaded, "President Trump, stop the appeasement of North Korea." New York Magazine tells us, "U.S. Scraps Military Exercise to Appease North Korea," and The National Review's Jonah Goldberg has denounced both Obama and Trump's respective "appeasements". This past June, Fox News ran an article, "Rep. Tim Ryan calls Trump's historic visit to the DMZ an 'appeasement tour.'" The 'appeasement' charge is shorthand for the weak-kneed naivety of pursuing peace with an implacable, existential, irredeemable, expansionist, and unequivocally evil enemy. Crying 'Munich!' works to obscure rational thought and stigmatizes diplomacy––using the horrors of gas chambers and jackboots marching into Paris to equate the deescalation of a conflict with conspiring with the enemy. We're joined today by Jim Naureckas of Fairness and Accuracy in Media.

We are often warned by conservatives, liberals and even some on the Left that we live in a time where "free speech" is under threat from far-left forces. "Political correctness" and "snowflakes" have shut down free inquiry, specifically on college campuses, and led to a crisis threatening the very foundation of our democracy. But the origins of the label "free speech" — as it's currently practiced — paint a much messier picture. Rather than appealing to the Vietnam-era Berkeley protest glory days, what one sees when examining the history of the concept is a temporary tactic used by the Left in the mid-to-late 1960s that has, since that late 1980s, become a far-right wedge designed to open up space for racism, eugenics, genocide denial, trans and homophobia and anti-feminist backlash. Defense of the right to keep open this space as an appeal to a universal value hides a well-funded, coordinated far-right attempt to maintain a conservative, largely male and cishet version of political correctness. On this episode, we discuss where the contemporary concept of "free speech" comes from, what its uses and misuses have been and how a rose-tinted time of pristine, perfectly free" speech never really existed. We are joined by journalist and author P.E. Moskowitz and Chair of Princeton University's Department of Anthropology Carolyn Rouse.

Friend of the show and writer at The Intercept Jon Schwarz joins us to review Samantha Power's self-serving, ahistorical memoir.

Nate Silver tell us Joe Biden's inconsistent political beliefs are, in fact, a benefit. They're "his calling card" and evidence he "reads the room pretty well". Venality, we are told, is "a normal and often successful [mode] for a politician." Insurgent progressive groups like Justice Democrats shouldn't call Biden out of touch with the base because, Silver tell us, "only 26 of the 79 candidates it endorsed last year won their primaries, and only 7 of those went on to win the general election." On Twitter and his in columns, high-status pundit Nate Silver, has made a career reporting on the polls and insisting he's just a dispassionate, non-ideological conduit of Cold Hard Facts, just channeling the holy word of data. Empirical journalism, he calls it. But this schtick, however, is very ideological - a reactionary worldview that prioritizes describing the world, rather than changing it. For Silver - and data-fetishists like him - politics is a sport to be gamed, rather than a mechanism for improving people's lives. We are joined by Current Affairs editor-in-chief Nathan J. Robinson.

Anti-poor shaming at Fox News is nothing new. But in recent years, with the rise of Trump and his more explicit brand of white nationalism, their tone on homelessness has grown more aggressive, exterminationist, and urgent. Tales of feces and liberal decay––peppered with immigrants, LGBTQ, and racist subtext––have contributed to a larger US media war on the houseless. In Part II of our two part episode on media incitement against the homeless, we discuss the ramped up panic at Fox News surrounding the indigent and its parallels with nazi rhetoric. We are joined by Madeline Peltz, researcher and writer at Media Matters.

"As homeless people turn off visitors, San Francisco tourism senses threat" notes Travelers Weekly. "Seattle Is Dying: Drugs And Homelessness In Seattle," laments KOMO Seattle. "Austin veteran fights off alleged homeless attacker after offering to help him," exclaims ABC-affiliate KVUE. As housing costs skyrocket and inequality grows, homelessness is reaching crisis levels in large metropolitan areas. In response, the media––namely local news stations––routinely treat the homeless like an invading species, a vermin to be, at best, contained, and at worst eradicated. The result has been a slew of stories pathologizing those experiencing homelessness as uniquely dangerous. Panhandlers are viewed as con men out to screw over the working man, chased down by vigilantes with the help of outraged local news "standing up" to the poor. The housing status of those who commit crimes is only mentioned when they're homeless––never for the housed––and every transgression committed by the homeless is viewed by our media as evidence that the homeless population in general is out to attack us all. But this narrative flies in the face of the evidence, and tracks––like most "crime coverage"––with the needs of real estate interests who set the tone for local media coverage, and who have every reason to highlight and oversell the threat of homeless to pressure lawmakers and police to displace "eye sores" for the yuppie clientele they're attempting to sell and ultimately serve. On this first of our two-part episode, we are joined by Steve Potter, an Austin-based artist and homeless activist.

Freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez taking to Twitter to criticize House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, we are told, "plays into the hands of Trump." Russians are using Black Lives Matter and anti-fracking activists to "sow discord," insists CNN. We must "be united" rather than "divided." Everywhere we turn we are told by high-status pundits that we shouldn't air our criticisms of power at this particular moment with any reasonable degree of severity lest our mutual enemies exploit these divisions to empower themselves. We are told again and again that progressives criticizing party leaders is helping Trump. That fighting Trump's racism is merely "playing into his hands," that we shouldn't attack other democrats in the primary too harshly lest it "give us four more years of Trump." But there's a major problem with this: There's no evidence that intra-party fighting loses elections or assists the "other side." In many ways, it may actually help engage voters and make them feel heard, rather than viewed as box-checkers for the already anointed. We are joined by Maximillian Alvarez of the podcast Working People.

"Three Pinocchios!" rates The Washington Post. "Pants On Fire!" declares PolitiFact. "True, but misleading," assess The New York Times. In a media environment overwhelmed with information, misinformation, disinformation and so-called "fake news," a cottage industry has emerged to "fact-check" the content coming across our screens. Prestige, corporate media outlets tell us if a viral meme, a politician's statement or a pundit's controversial claims is indeed "factually correct." But who fact-checks the fact-checkers? And what do mainstream media's particular hyper-literal, decontextualized approach to "facts" and "truth" say about how the press views its role as ideological gate keeper? We are joined by writer Andrew Hart.

The term "Western civilization" has long been a staple of the American Right, but with the recent resurgence of white nationalism, it is having something of a comeback. Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are hosting a two-week Mediterranean "cruise thru history" to "explore the roots of Western civilization." The Intellectual Dark Web's Jordan Peterson tells us "The West is Right," while The Daily Caller and Fox News are busy "celebrating the West." Neo-Nazi Matthew Heimbach hails "Youth for Western Civilization." Both the traditional and so-called alt-right ground their worldviews in a fictional moral arc of "The West" that bares little resemblance to reality. Learning from the past and applying those lessons to the present is a good thing. But in pop political discourse, the Classics have been misused and abused to promote an origin story that never was - a white Greco-Roman world birthing our noble, so-called "Judeo-Christian" American empire to gloss over a history of exploitation, imperialism, slavery and conquest. On this episode, we'll explore the right-wing obsession with the ancient world, it's influence on neoconservative empire-building and alt-right white nationalism alike, and how our common cultural understanding of the ancient world has been perpetually white-washed to promote a clash of civilizations narrative and racist pseudo-science. We are joined by Dr. Sarah E. Bond, Associate Professor at the University of Iowa, and Dr. Cord Whitaker, Associate Professor at Wellesley College.

"A growing, and likely irreparable, rift between elite progressive environmentalists," Forbes tells us. "Environmentalists need to reconnect with blue-collar America," The Hill explains. "Labor anger over Green New Deal greets 2020 contenders in California," Politico reports. "AOC's Green New Deal could have Dems facing blue-collar backlash at polls, some say," a Fox News headline reads. One of the few times corporate media cares what "American labor" has to say is when they're using them as wedge against other elements of the Left, namely environmentalists and activists calling for urgent solutions to climate change. The narrative they're reinforcing: a broadly assumed––but largely baseless––premise that climate change is a boutique issue for wealthy liberals that real working people don't care about. For a media that still largely views the working class as a white-man-with-a-hard-hat caricature, this fits into a nice binary that undermines both efforts to take on fossil fuel companies and improve the lives of workers. But who does the false dichotomy serve? How does the media highlight and misconstrue real points of tension to undermine both groups, and what can activists do to resolve good faith differences without playing into power-serving "hardhats vs. hippies" cliches? And what do we mean when we say "labor"? How do workers drowning in the South Pacific or displaced in South Sudan factor into our notion of what's at stake in the "labor vs. environmentalist" debate about climate change? We are joined on this episode by writer and editor Michelle Chen.

In countless pop culture and media depictions, animal rights advocates and vegetarians in general, are viewed as effete weirdos, dirty hippies and humorless busybodies. Pop culture staples from "South Park" to "How I Met Your Mother" to "Six Feet Under" have used animal rights and those concerned for animal welfare as a go-to, faux populist target. Content-wise, mocking vegans is the lowest hanging fruit. They're difficult and self-righteous, a ready-made punching bag. Additionally, the press––including leading left-of-center media MSNBC, The Nation, and Jacobin––ignore the issue entirely. But what if the subject is worth a second look? And, what if our general cultural dislike of vegans is based not on objective experience but a cheap stereotype that allows for in-group signaling, permitting us, above all, to not ask or answer uncomfortable questions about where animals fit on the left. We are joined by author and professor Dr. Lori Gruen and decolonial theorist Aph Ko.

"Satellite Images Raise Questions About Iran Threat, Experts Say," worries The Daily Beast. "Iran And Trading Partners Will Find Ways To Skirt Sanctions, Analysts Say," frets NPR. "Iran uses proxies to punch above its weight in the Middle East, experts say," declares NBC News. "Fuel from Iran is financing Yemen rebels' war, U.N. experts say," writes the Associated Press. Experts say. Analysts say. Officials say. We hear these qualifiers constantly in the media and when it comes to reporting on Iran, experts, analysts, scholars and Fellows are consistently tapped to weigh in on the latest nefarious thing the "Islamic Republic" is up to now. But who are these so-called experts? What's their track record like and what are their tangential, non-Iranian, related regional political goals? And what does a recent partnership between the Trump State Department and Foundation for Defense of Democracies that targets peace activists on social media tell us about the broader problem of so-called neutral experts? On today's episode, we'll dig into some of the resumes of the media's favorite experticians and breakdown how a revolving door of deeply ideological partisans use US media to pawn themselves off as apolitical scholars. We are joined today by journalist and editor Arash Karami.

Since the beginning of the so-called War on Drugs, authorities in the United States have viewed drugs not as a public health issue but one of crime, vice and violence, requiring the funding and mobilization not of medical officials but police, DEA agents and a sprawling network of paramilitary actors. In response, corporate media and its culture of parasitic, "ride-along" coverage has evolved in parallel taking this same line, reflecting the state's approach rather than influencing or challenging it. "Drug stories," with rare exception, fall under the "crime" reporting rubric rather than being seen as stories to be covered by reporters familiar with the actual science of drugs and addiction - skirting empiricism for police stenography and cartoon narratives replete with good guys and bad guys. The result: a feedback loop of a police and federal government determined to keep the War on Drugs in their domain, shaping a media narrative that manufactures and manipulates the public's and lawmakers' perception of drugs and drug-related crime. But what if there's another way? Increasingly, public health advocates and journalists have been pushing back, trying to demilitarize not just the public approach to drugs but how they're covered in the media. On this episode, we explore how we got to this point––where drugs are viewed as an enemy force to be combated with violence and prisons––and highlight ways people are trying to fundamentally rewire the way we talk about the problems of drugs and addiction. With guest Zachary Siegel, Journalism Fellow at Northeastern University's Health in Justice Action Lab.

"How this millennial saved $1 million by age 30," The Washington Post writes. "A Millennial Saved $100,000 With This Simple Habit," CNBC insists. "How to save for retirement when you're living paycheck to paycheck," CNN confides in us. Everywhere in American media we are told if only we engaged in simple, no-nonsense discipline we can retire at 35. But what is the political objective of this popular mode of journalism? More than just generating clicks to sell investment instruments to the credulous, this genre has a distinct ideological purpose: to obscure generational poverty, largely brought on by the legacy of racism and Jim Crow, and make being poor the result of a series of moral failings rather than a deliberate political regime decided on by powerful actors. This week, we explore the "personal finance" media industry and the corollary, so-called FIRE movement—and how their poor shaming, libertarian ethos has increasingly seeped into our mainstream click-happy online press. Our guest is writer and editor Miles Howard.

In the lead up to the 2020 presidential election, two of the Obama administration's most consistently hawkish advisors, former Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes and former US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power have rebranded themselves as anti-war voices in a world turned upside down by Trump's radical foreign policy and what we've been told is an global environment of rising "authoritarianism." With a perfunctory "we could have done more" gesture towards accountability for their role in an administration that turned Libya into a broken state and assisted the destruction of Yemen before they move on to positioning themselves as truth-tellers on behalf of a kinder, gentler machine gun hand in the run up to a potential Warren, Sanders or Harris administration, Rhodes and Power have tested the limits of liberal amnesia. On this episode, we take a closer look at their rebranding and what it says about the so-called "foreign policy" debate in the 2020 democratic primary and what actual accountability looks like beyond empty tweets and self-serving "I was trying to change things from the inside" revisionism. Our guest is Dr. Shireen Al-Adeimi of Michigan State University.

In this unlocked News Brief we discuss New York media's racist, factually incorrect coverage of the #Bronx120 and how Preet Bharara went from careerist "gang raid" general locking up poor black teenagers to woke MSNBC platitude machine.

"Naked Florida man revealed on video sneaking into restaurant and munching on ramen." "Florida man broke into jewelry store, cut himself on glass and bled all over everything, police say." "Florida man arrested at Olive Garden after eating spaghetti with his hands." We've seen this supposedly hilarious stories for years on our social media feeds and wacky listicle. Florida-themed crime stories, we are told, are uniquely bizarre and worthy of derision. But what are we really mocking when we mock "Florida Man"? On this total buzzkill episode, we dissect the anti-poor, mental health-shaming subtext that animates the Florida Man meme and how it too often serves as little more than a socially acceptable way to mock the marginalized and indigent. We are joined by Florida organizer Michelle Bruder.

"The United States believes any Palestinian government must renounce violence," a U.S. official told Ha'aretz. When it comes to nonviolence, writes Barbara Reynolds in The Washington Post, "Black Lives Matter seems intent on rejecting the proven methods." "Violence Is Never the Answer," New York Times columnist Charles Blow insists. We are told endlessly that violence is inherently and unequivocally bad, something - when it comes to advocating for social justice or against military occupation and fascism - that's always to be avoided, condemned and renounced. It must be rejected, our press and politicians declare, in favor of non-violence, so-called "peaceful protests" and the democratic process. But in popular discourse, discussions of violence aren't really about violence; rather, they're about sanctioned versus unsanctioned violence. The routine violence of poverty, racist policing, militarism is never called "violence"–––it's just the way things are, a law of nature, the price of "stability". But unsanctioned violence, namely that carried out by activists, non or sub-state actors, and those generally distant from the halls of power, causes outrage without any coherent criteria for this indignation. On this episode, we discuss how what is and isn't deemed "violence" by our media is largely a function of proximity to power and whether those actions challenge or serve the interests of the status quo. We are joined by journalist and author Natasha Lennard.

"The scale of corruption in Africa is daunting," warns The Economist. "Corruption a Cause of Poverty in the Developing World," DW tells us. "Why corruption is holding Africa back," CNN laments. Everywhere we turn in elite media and halls of power, we are told the global South is poor, in part or in whole, due to rampant "corruption." But a closer look at the data – and any effort to put notions of corruption in their proper historical context - reveals our limited, racialized definition of corruption is the geopolitical equivalent of complaining about "black on black" crime. True in a limited, technical sense but, in practice, often functions as a victim-blaming red herring meant to avoid uncomfortable discussions of white supremacy, deliberate economic dispossession and a far greater global regime of corruption leveled by the super-wealthy. This episode examines the extraction of trillions annually from the global South in illicit transfers of money through the exploitation of tax shelters, so-called "hot money", interests on exploitative IMF loans, trade misinvoicing and a host of other routine and totally unscrutinized financial schemes. We are joined today by anthropologist and author Jason Hickel.

Though now a fixture of the fringe right-wing, libertarian pundit John Stossel was a longtime staple of mainstream, Serious Person media. With hour-long specials and a weekly segment on the ABC program 20/20, Stossel built his brand as muckraking Truth-Teller against Big Government and out of control "political correctness", along with an empire of high school "educational" videos, distributed by libertarian billionaire-funded front groups to tens of thousands of American classrooms. In his peak libertarian phase on 20/20, the ABC News program was frequently a Top 20 show, with an average of 13 million viewers an episode. Through his "Give Me A Break" segments and other high-profile special reports, Stossel – without challenge or balance – spread endless well-worn libertarian scare stories on topics ranging from teachers' unions to the EPA to anti-tobacco regulators to minimum wage to Black civil rights activists, nut-picking the most fringe elements while building stories on anecdotal, fraudulent data and a black hole of libertarian sourcing. On this episode, we trace today's neoliberal, far-right toxic media back to Stossel's brand of mainstream-laundered, libertarian "contrarianism." We are joined by Jeff Cohen, founder of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR).

Kinetic strikes. Limited military coercion. Robust sanctions. No fly zones. Military muscle. Modernization. All options are on the table. So much of how we discuss U.S. militarism and imperialism is laundered through seemingly anodyne phrases, rhetorical thingamajigs that vaguely gesture towards an idea without conjuring the unseemly images of what's really being called for. In Part II of our two-part episode on "foreign policy-speak," we examine five more ubiquitous euphemisms and discuss what's really being said (and what's always left out) when the media uses banal phrases meant to mask military violence. Our guest is FAIR's Janine Jackson.

Barack Obama unleashes "kinetic strikes" on Libya, Hillary Clinton lobbies for "limited military coercion" in Syria, Congress passes "robust sanctions" on Iran, and Trump gives "US generals more room to run" as he "ramps up" "pressure" on ISIS. The Center for American Progress calls for a "no fly zone" to "protect civilians." It's important the US "engage" in the Middle East as it "reasserts itself" on "the world stage," and backs up "diplomacy" with "military muscle." While Russia "expands" its naval and nuclear capacity the US merely "modernizes" its fleet or stockpile. "All options are on the table" when discussing Venezuela and Iran. So much of how we discuss US militarism and imperialism is laundered through seemingly anodyne phrases, rhetorical thingamajigs that vaguely gesture towards an idea without drawing up unseemly images of what's really being called for. In this two-part episode, we examine what's being said, what's being left out when we use "foreign policy-speak," and how writers can avoid these lazy euphemisms, and instead make a concerted effort to objectively describe the policy being advocated for rather than relying on well-worn thought-terminating cliches that are designed to do all of our thinking for us. Our guest is FAIR's Janine Jackson.

It's a trope that dates back more than a decade, but the rise of Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has seen a recent resurgence in the liberal's "Inexplicable Republican Best Friend," a specific genre of concern trolling where a long-time Republican operative, politician or pundit offers supposedly well-intentioned "advice" to Democrats about how they can win elections, which always relies on avoiding veering "too far left." These takes––frequently featured as earnest appeals in liberal and centrist outlets––are ostensibly framed as straight-talk advice that should be accepted as objectively in the Democrats' best interest, and never presented as an ideological argument that would otherwise make sense coming from a right-winger. "Republican hates socialism" isn't that newsworthy, whereas "GOP operative identifies Democrats' best interests" somehow is. As with most ideological scams, it only travels in one direction: leftward. One seldom hears liberals or leftists give "advice" to Republicans about they ought to do to win. But somehow the inverse isn't true. Anti-choice, climate change denying, racist, rape apologist, warmongering, overpaid mercenary GOP "strategists" are treated like objective, neutral voices simply looking out for the best interests of the people and institutions they've spent their entire careers trying to destroy. We are joined by Huffington Post senior reporter Ashley Feinberg.

An uptick in mass shootings over the past decade - one that is well documented and indisputable - has provided the cultural and media context for a corollary effort by big city mayors and certain states to push for harsher, more severe gun laws. This response to these national tragedies is understandable: curb gun possession at all costs. But what if, in this rush to respond to the carnage, states and cities, backed by billionaire funding from the likes of Mike Bloomberg, are simply helping feed mass incarceration by turning to the all-familiar carceral approach to public safety issues? This week, we explore the centering of white, establishment, moneyed interests in the media's gun control debate, a debate that more often than not focuses disproportionately on enacting longer, more severe prison sentences that uniformly criminalize Black and Latino youth, rather than directing resources to non-carceral solutions like targeting gun manufactures and anti-poverty programs. We are joined by Dan Denvir, host of Jacobin's The Dig podcast, and Sharone Mitchell, Jr., Deputy Director of the Illinois Justice Project.

In this public News Brief we review the media coverage of Sanders and Clinton in 2016 and how this past is being written and rewritten to set the narrative for 2020. (1000 apologies for the edited swear word, iTunes doesn't allow you to say bad words in show titles).

"How to Choose the Most Electable Democrat in 2020," advises Politico. "Amy Klobuchar's best argument for 2020: Electability," CNN reports. "Is Electability The Only Thing That Democratic Voters Want?" WGBH, the Boston NPR affiliate, wonders. These articles, all from a one-week stretch this February, speak to a prevailing compulsion in our politics, boosted by our media. Time and again we hear about the primacy of "electability," a nebulous but self-evidently important criteria, when selecting a candidate. But what does "electability" mean exactly? How can someone have, in effect, been elected in our minds before an actual election takes place? This week, we will drill down the origins of the term "electability": how it's a concept embraced by brain-dead, horse-race-obsessed pundits, why it has inherently racist and sexist implications, and how it's designed to draw voters away from candidates they actually agree with to ones more in line with the agenda of the corporate wing of the Democratic party party. Our guest is Anoa Changa, host of the podcast The Way With Anoa.

Since the beginning of what's generally called 'RussiaGate' three years ago, pundits, media outlets, even comedians have all become insta-experts on supposed Russian propaganda techniques. The most cunning of these tricks, we are told, is that of "whataboutism" – a devious Soviet tactic of deflecting criticism by pointing out the accusers' hypocrisy and inconsistencies. The tu quoque - or, "you, also" - fallacy, but with a unique Slavic flavor of nihilism, used by Trump and leftists alike in an effort to change the subject and focus on the faults of the United States rather than the crimes of Official State Enemies. But what if "whataboutism" isn't describing a propaganda technique, but in fact is one itself: a zombie phrase that's seeped into everyday liberal discourse that – while perhaps useful in the abstract - has manifestly turned any appeal to moral consistency into a cunning Russian psyop. From its origins in the Cold War as a means of deflecting and apologizing for Jim Crow to its braindead contemporary usage as a way of not engaging any criticism of the United States as the supposed arbiter of human rights, the term "whataboutism" has become a term that - 100 percent of the time - is simply used to defend and legitimizing American empire's moral narratives. We are joined by Jeremy Scahill, co-founder of The Intercept.

Since the dawn of the American Empire, thin moral pretexts in our politics and press have been used to justify our wars and conquest. The invasion of Cuba and Philippines in 1898 was declared to be a fight for freedom from Spanish oppression. Vietnam was about stopping Communist tyranny. T he pioneer myth of Manifest Destiny and "westward expansion" was built about "taming" and "civilizing' the land from violent savages. But one current that flows through all of these imperial incursions has been the idea that the United States – as well as its allies the Great Britain and Israel – are out to protect women. Today's endless occupations in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are, in large part, justified in perpetuity because the United States is a self-declared, unique protector of modernity and women's rights. All the same, the Pentagon is increasingly promoted, in press releases and media puffy pieces, as a place where women can exercise their agency: the ultimate apex of meritocracy and a vanguard of equality. But what if this approach misses the point of equality altogether? What if this is simply a craven branding exercise, putting a liberal face on what is a fundamentally oppressive system of violence? On this episode, we explore various ways women's rights and empowerment has been used to sell colonial objectives and how one can differentiate between actual progress and the superficial language of inclusion used cynically in service of mechanized violence. Our guests are University of Delaware professor Dr. Kara Ellerby and University of Bristol senior lecturer Dr. Sumita Mukherjee.