Citations Needed

In this episode, we discuss the uses and misuses of liberal standpoint theory to promote US meddling, sanctions, and bombing. With guest Vincent Bevins.

Transcribed - Published: 10 December 2025

In this News Brief, we interview journalist Daniel Trilling and discuss his investigation into the BBC's systemic anti-Palestinian bias.

Transcribed - Published: 3 December 2025

In this episode, we detail the buyers' market for superficial Gaza critiques that permit ambitious Democrats to look pro-Palestine without the downside of actually being so. With guest Tariq Kenney-Shawa.

Transcribed - Published: 26 November 2025

In this episode, we detail recent attempts by former Biden officials to rewrite history and absolve themselves of responsibility for the horrors of Gaza, and lay out the emerging Dem-aligned media industry of vibing past Democrats' lockstep support for genocide.

Transcribed - Published: 19 November 2025

In this Live Show Beg-a-Thon from 10/13, we are joined by Justin Feldman to discuss the rise of MAHA, the broader Granola-to-Fascist Pipeline and how corporate-written food policies and our shitty for-profit medical system fuel hucksterism.

Transcribed - Published: 10 November 2025

In this News Brief, we detail how the AP, Atlantic, Washington Post and New York Times are accepting Trump's framing that his attacks on Venezuela and Colombia are about "going after drug cartels" when it's clear they are—based on Trump's own words—about controlling Venezuela's oil. 

Transcribed - Published: 29 October 2025

In this News Brief, we are joined by Matthew Cunningham-Cook to discuss his recent media analysis of "embedded reports" of ICE raids that prime the public for brutal crackdowns on undocumented immigrants.

Transcribed - Published: 22 October 2025

In this News Brie, we detail the major factions seeking to rewrite the history of the 2024 election as "woke" Gone Too Far, downplay Gaza, and prevent economic populism at all costs.

Transcribed - Published: 13 October 2025

Please join us Monday, Oct 13 for a Beg-A-Thon live show @ 9:30ET/8:30CT! We will be joined by Justin Feldman to discuss the rise of MAHA, the broader Granola-to-Fascist Pipeline and how corporate-written food policies and our horrible, for-profit medical system fuel hucksterism.

Transcribed - Published: 6 October 2025

In this episode we detail the rise of detached "who's winning and who's losing" political analyses that reduces high stakes life and death issues to fodder for ESPN-style navel-gazing. With guest Jack Mirkinson.

Transcribed - Published: 1 October 2025

In Ep 228, "Billionaires as Insta-Experts: How Our Media Conflates Extreme Wealth with Expertise," we break down the media convention of assuming the rich are per se experts on everything from education to "the economy" to poverty in Africa when, in reality, they are Just Some Guys. With guest Rob Larson.

Transcribed - Published: 24 September 2025

In this News Brief, we detail recent "updates," "clarifications" and "added context" pro-Israel crybullies have pressured Western media outlets to make (some more willingly than others) that give readers the distinct impression emaciated children in Gaza aren't really an urgent humanitarian crisis if they have rickets, cancer, or cerebral palsy.  With guest Beatrice Adler-Bolton. 

Transcribed - Published: 27 August 2025

In this News Brief, we detail recent "updates," "clarifications" and "added context" pro-Israel crybullies have pressured Western media outlets to make (some more willingly than others) that give readers the distinct impression emaciated children in Gaza aren't really an urgent humanitarian crisis if they have rickets, cancer, or cerebral palsy.  With guest Beatrice Adler-Bolton. 

Published: 27 August 2025

"Exclusive Look at Life in War-Ravaged Gaza," reads the title for a CNN interview with correspondent Clarissa Ward. "'It's a Killing Field': IDF Soldiers Ordered to Shoot Deliberately at Unarmed Gazans Waiting for Humanitarian Aid," report Yaniv Kubovich and Bar Peleg for Ha'aretz. "I’m a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It," argues Omer Bartov in The New York Times. These stories have something in common: they’re vital pieces of journalism about Gaza, or Palestine more broadly, published in Western and Western-aligned outlets. This is, obviously, important. Reporting like this keeps Western audiences informed about Israel’s genocide in Gaza, fortifies sympathetic Westerners’ solidarity with Palestine, and serves as an essential counter to the pro-Israel PR machine powering so much other Western media coverage. But while these pieces have made a splash among their audiences, in many cases, they’re building upon points that Palestinian journalists, writers, and activists had been making weeks, months, even years before. So why is the reporting of Palestinian journalists–especially their reporting on what’s happening within their own country and cities–so often ignored, only to be heeded after it gets the Western stamp of approval? On this episode — our Season 8 finale and also the second part of our two-part series on “The Importance of Seriousness, or Why Palestinians Can’t Be Witness to Their Own Genocide” — we explore the discrepancies in the alleged credibility between Western and Israeli journalists and Palestinian and other Arab journalists, especially when it comes to reporting on Israel’s genocide in Gaza. We’ll look at how, by Western standards, journalists don’t build legitimacy by being correct, so much as by being in close proximity to the political and media establishments. Our guest is writer and organizer Kaleem Hawa.

Transcribed - Published: 13 August 2025

"Exclusive Look at Life in War-Ravaged Gaza," reads the title for a CNN interview with correspondent Clarissa Ward. "'It's a Killing Field': IDF Soldiers Ordered to Shoot Deliberately at Unarmed Gazans Waiting for Humanitarian Aid," report Yaniv Kubovich and Bar Peleg for Ha'aretz. "I'm a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It," argues Omer Bartov in The New York Times. These stories have something in common: they're vital pieces of journalism about Gaza, or Palestine more broadly, published in Western and Western-aligned outlets. This is, obviously, important. Reporting like this keeps Western audiences informed about Israel's genocide in Gaza, fortifies sympathetic Westerners' solidarity with Palestine, and serves as an essential counter to the pro-Israel PR machine powering so much other Western media coverage. But while these pieces have made a splash among their audiences, in many cases, they're building upon points that Palestinian journalists, writers, and activists had been making weeks, months, even years before. So why is the reporting of Palestinian journalists–especially their reporting on what's happening within their own country and cities–so often ignored, only to be heeded after it gets the Western stamp of approval? On this episode — our Season 8 finale and also the second part of our two-part series on "The Importance of Seriousness, or Why Palestinians Can't Be Witness to Their Own Genocide" — we explore the discrepancies in the alleged credibility between Western and Israeli journalists and Palestinian and other Arab journalists, especially when it comes to reporting on Israel's genocide in Gaza. We'll look at how, by Western standards, journalists don't build legitimacy by being correct, so much as by being in close proximity to the political and media establishments. Our guest is writer and organizer Kaleem Hawa.

Published: 13 August 2025

“12 UN Relief Works Agency staff members are accused of involvement in Hamas' attack against Israel,” reports NPR. “Details Emerge on U.N. Workers Accused of Aiding Hamas Raid,” announces The New York Times. “Hamas Military Compound Found Beneath U.N. Agency Headquarters in Gaza,” claims The Wall Street Journal. In January 2024—literally on the same day the International Court of Justice deemed Israel was committing “plausible genocide”—a number of sensationalistic headlines broke across U.S. media, namely The Wall Street Journal and New York Times, telling us in 40-point font that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the single most important supplier of food and medical aid in Palestine, was in fact a front for "Hamas." Western audiences were told that, based on “Israeli intelligence”, 12 workers at the agency may have been involved in the attacks on October 7, 2023, and, in another blockbuster claim, that “Around 10% of Palestinian aid agency’s 12,000 staff in Gaza have links to militants, according to intelligence dossier.” Given this history, the logic went, who knows how else the agency might be operating at the behest of Hamas? It would have been a major revelation if there were any evidence to support it. But there wasn’t and the story was later dropped, walked back or ignored by the media. But the damage was done: President Biden quickly defunded UNRWA and Israel criminalized it, helping fast track mass starvation in Gaza. So why did media outlets publish so many breathless and lurid headlines about Israel’s claims without an ounce of independent confirmation? To what extent, if any, have outlets acknowledged their journalistic and moral recklessness? And how has this contributed to the mass starvation, immiseration, and wholesale murder of the population of Gaza? On this episode, Part I of our two-part season finale on “The Importance of Seriousness, or Why Palestinians Can’t Be Witness to Their Own Genocide,” we examine the role of legacy news media in inciting the starvation of millions of Palestinians in Gaza, the racist double standard of what sources and experts can be trusted and the broader incitement campaign against the UN Relief and Works Agency which directly caused today’s mass starvation in Gaza. Our guest is Moureen Kaki, Head of Mission at Glia.

Transcribed - Published: 6 August 2025

"12 UN Relief Works Agency staff members are accused of involvement in Hamas' attack against Israel," reports NPR. "Details Emerge on U.N. Workers Accused of Aiding Hamas Raid," announces The New York Times. "Hamas Military Compound Found Beneath U.N. Agency Headquarters in Gaza," claims The Wall Street Journal. In January 2024—literally on the same day the International Court of Justice deemed Israel was committing "plausible genocide"—a number of sensationalistic headlines broke across U.S. media, namely The Wall Street Journal and New York Times, telling us in 40-point font that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the single most important supplier of food and medical aid in Palestine, was in fact a front for "Hamas." Western audiences were told that, based on "Israeli intelligence", 12 workers at the agency may have been involved in the attacks on October 7, 2023, and, in another blockbuster claim, that "Around 10% of Palestinian aid agency's 12,000 staff in Gaza have links to militants, according to intelligence dossier." Given this history, the logic went, who knows how else the agency might be operating at the behest of Hamas? It would have been a major revelation if there were any evidence to support it. But there wasn't and the story was later dropped, walked back or ignored by the media. But the damage was done: President Biden quickly defunded UNRWA and Israel criminalized it, helping fast track mass starvation in Gaza. So why did media outlets publish so many breathless and lurid headlines about Israel's claims without an ounce of independent confirmation? To what extent, if any, have outlets acknowledged their journalistic and moral recklessness? And how has this contributed to the mass starvation, immiseration, and wholesale murder of the population of Gaza? On this episode, Part I of our two-part season finale on "The Importance of Seriousness, or Why Palestinians Can't Be Witness to Their Own Genocide," we examine the role of legacy news media in inciting the starvation of millions of Palestinians in Gaza, the racist double standard of what sources and experts can be trusted and the broader incitement campaign against the UN Relief and Works Agency which directly caused today's mass starvation in Gaza. Our guest is Moureen Kaki, Head of Mission at Glia.

Published: 6 August 2025

"Student loan forgiveness is a bribe for young voters," shouted Newsweek in 2022. "Harris's call for price controls on groceries is more pandering than policy," declared The Hill in 2024. "Free for all: Democratic socialist's policy pitches face tough fiscal reality in New York," warned Politico this year. Every time an elected official or political candidate proposes a policy with even the slightest hint of actual populism, U.S. pundits, analysts and alleged experts line up to tell us that it's just a scheme to "buy votes." Offering student-debt relief is just cheating. Lowering grocery costs is simply pandering. Eliminating public-transit fares is merely bribing voters. These initiatives aren't developed in good faith in order to improve the lives of the public; they're cynical ploys to help a given politician get ahead. We know that some policymakers make promises that they'll never fulfill, or chisel away at robust and universal proposals, or backtrack on bold and transformative ideas. This happens all the time. But all too often, media's default position is to assert that even the most modest of economically populist proposals are mere strategies to buy votes, revealing grim truths about what our media class seems to think the responsibilities of lawmakers and governments are. On this episode, we examine the media tendency to assume that anything remotely close to populism is somehow cheating, playing the game on "god mode" or "democracy game genie," and ought to be discouraged by Serious People, putting a sinister spin on what is simply Doing Things People Want. Our guest is FAIR's Janine Jackson.

Published: 23 July 2025

"Student loan forgiveness is a bribe for young voters," shouted Newsweek in 2022. "Harris's call for price controls on groceries is more pandering than policy," declared The Hill in 2024. "Free for all: Democratic socialist’s policy pitches face tough fiscal reality in New York," warned Politico this year. Every time an elected official or political candidate proposes a policy with even the slightest hint of actual populism, U.S. pundits, analysts and alleged experts line up to tell us that it’s just a scheme to "buy votes." Offering student-debt relief is just cheating. Lowering grocery costs is simply pandering. Eliminating public-transit fares is merely bribing voters. These initiatives aren't developed in good faith in order to improve the lives of the public; they're cynical ploys to help a given politician get ahead. We know that some policymakers make promises that they'll never fulfill, or chisel away at robust and universal proposals, or backtrack on bold and transformative ideas. This happens all the time. But all too often, media’s default position is to assert that even the most modest of economically populist proposals are mere strategies to buy votes, revealing grim truths about what our media class seems to think the responsibilities of lawmakers and governments are. On this episode, we examine the media tendency to assume that anything remotely close to populism is somehow cheating, playing the game on "god mode" or "democracy game genie," and ought to be discouraged by Serious People, putting a sinister spin on what is simply Doing Things People Want. Our guest is FAIR's Janine Jackson.

Transcribed - Published: 23 July 2025

In this episode, we detail the classic PR gambit of corporations anticipating regulation, offering to "self-police," implementing token or superficial reforms, waiting for the outrage to blow over, then going back to business a usual. With guest Timi Iwayemi of Revolving Door Project. 

Published: 16 July 2025

In this episode, we detail the classic PR gambit of corporations anticipating regulation, offering to "self-police," implementing token or superficial reforms, waiting for the outrage to blow over, then going back to business a usual. With guest Timi Iwayemi of Revolving Door Project. 

Transcribed - Published: 16 July 2025

In this News Brief, we break down recent bad faith attacks on Zohran Mamdani, the ADL's DO YOU CONDEMN extortion racket, and the broader "antisemitism scandal" playbook to derail moderate social democratic policies and any meaningful criticism of Israel.

Transcribed - Published: 1 July 2025

In this News Brief, we break down recent bad faith attacks on Zohran Mamdani, the ADL's DO YOU CONDEMN extortion racket, and the broader "antisemitism scandal" playbook to derail moderate social democratic policies and any meaningful criticism of Israel.

Published: 1 July 2025

In this News Brief, we are joined by Ashley Bohrer and Ben Teller of Jewish Voice for Peace Chicago to discuss media indifference to the US and Israel-imposed starvation of Palestinians, how sectarianism is central to the ADL's strategy, and why six JVP activists have decided to hunger strike to draw more attention to the Israeli and US-made famine in Gaza.

Transcribed - Published: 19 June 2025

In this News Brief, we break down the insta-talking points to sell war with Iran––from Ticking Time Bomb '24' plots to cherry-picked, dubious anecdotes of Iranians supposedly begging for Israeli bombs. 

Transcribed - Published: 17 June 2025

In this News Brief, we break down the insta-talking points to sell war with Iran––from Ticking Time Bomb '24' plots to cherry-picked, dubious anecdotes of Iranians supposedly begging for Israeli bombs. 

Transcribed - Published: 17 June 2025

In this public News Brief, we detail how the NYT, Washington Post, and CNN reinforce every faulty premise of Israel's attack and how top Democrats in Congress and former Harris aides either ignore Trump and Israel's massive escalation or openly support it, showing once again the scope of debate in our politics and media ranges all the way from A to B. 

Transcribed - Published: 13 June 2025

In this public News Brief, we detail how the NYT, Washington Post, and CNN reinforce every faulty premise of Israel's attack and how top Democrats in Congress and former Harris aides either ignore Trump and Israel's massive escalation or openly support it, showing once again the scope of debate in our politics and media ranges all the way from A to B. 

Published: 13 June 2025

“Can Democrats Learn to Dream Big Again?,” wonders Samuel Moyn in the New York Times. “The Democrats Are Finally Landing on a New Buzzword. It’s Actually Compelling,” argues Slate staff writer Henry Grabar. “Do Democrats Need to Learn How to Build?,” asks Benjamin Wallace-Wells in The New Yorker.  For the past few months, news and editorial rooms have been abuzz with talk about a new, grand vision for the Democratic Party: abundance. Abundance, according to its media promoters—chiefly NYT’s Ezra Klein and The Atlantic’s Derek Thompson—is a political agenda that espouses the creation of more of everything we need: housing, education, jobs, and energy, to name a few examples. To accomplish this, we are told, we must aim to eliminate bureaucratic red tape that has for so long bogged down production, innovation, and capital’s innate capacity and desire to provide a better, more abundant life. It’s an alluring promise—if suspiciously vague and devoid of class politics: obviously, doing more good things is better than doing fewer good things, right? Who can argue with this generic premise? Who wouldn’t want to support an agenda that’s effectively the Do Good Things Agenda? Scratch the surface, however, and what one finds it isn’t just a folky, common sense treatise against red tape, but something more sinister and dishonest, something more slick and shallow. What one gets is a standard entryist strategy that begins with a so-vague-it’s-incontestable hook—illogical or corrupt regulations are bad—the quickly pivots into a Silicon Valley flattering, and often Silicon Valley funded, political agenda, a narrative designed to blame inequality and our objectively broken political system on too much regulation and “bureaucracy” rather than there being too much power in the hands of an elite few. What one gets, in other words, is a counter to left populism. What one gets is the latest attempt to reheat neoliberalism as something fresh, innovative and able to excite the voting base. Last week, in Part I of a two-part series we’re calling “The Empire Strikes First,” we discussed the Democrats’ post-2024 apologia, propped up by scapegoats ranging from trans people to “economic headwinds” to Harris actually being too far left. On this episode, Part II of the series, we explore what comes next: the 2028 Democratic strategy and the so-called abundance agenda that is increasingly shaping it. We’ll examine how Democratic media influencers and policymakers use lofty, seemingly progressive rhetoric to rehabilitate and re-sell the same old neoliberal deregulation, privatization, and austerity narrative that got us here in the first place, and ensure that no left-wing movement—that could, god forbid, require a meaningful change in the party—get in their way. Our guests are the Revolving Door Project's Kenny Stancil and Henry Burke.

Transcribed - Published: 11 June 2025

"Can Democrats Learn to Dream Big Again?," wonders Samuel Moyn in the New York Times. "The Democrats Are Finally Landing on a New Buzzword. It's Actually Compelling," argues Slate staff writer Henry Grabar. "Do Democrats Need to Learn How to Build?," asks Benjamin Wallace-Wells in The New Yorker.  For the past few months, news and editorial rooms have been abuzz with talk about a new, grand vision for the Democratic Party: abundance. Abundance, according to its media promoters—chiefly NYT's Ezra Klein and The Atlantic's Derek Thompson—is a political agenda that espouses the creation of more of everything we need: housing, education, jobs, and energy, to name a few examples. To accomplish this, we are told, we must aim to eliminate bureaucratic red tape that has for so long bogged down production, innovation, and capital's innate capacity and desire to provide a better, more abundant life. It's an alluring promise—if suspiciously vague and devoid of class politics: obviously, doing more good things is better than doing fewer good things, right? Who can argue with this generic premise? Who wouldn't want to support an agenda that's effectively the Do Good Things Agenda? Scratch the surface, however, and what one finds it isn't just a folky, common sense treatise against red tape, but something more sinister and dishonest, something more slick and shallow. What one gets is a standard entryist strategy that begins with a so-vague-it's-incontestable hook—illogical or corrupt regulations are bad—the quickly pivots into a Silicon Valley flattering, and often Silicon Valley funded, political agenda, a narrative designed to blame inequality and our objectively broken political system on too much regulation and "bureaucracy" rather than there being too much power in the hands of an elite few. What one gets, in other words, is a counter to left populism. What one gets is the latest attempt to reheat neoliberalism as something fresh, innovative and able to excite the voting base. Last week, in Part I of a two-part series we're calling "The Empire Strikes First," we discussed the Democrats' post-2024 apologia, propped up by scapegoats ranging from trans people to "economic headwinds" to Harris actually being too far left. On this episode, Part II of the series, we explore what comes next: the 2028 Democratic strategy and the so-called abundance agenda that is increasingly shaping it. We'll examine how Democratic media influencers and policymakers use lofty, seemingly progressive rhetoric to rehabilitate and re-sell the same old neoliberal deregulation, privatization, and austerity narrative that got us here in the first place, and ensure that no left-wing movement—that could, god forbid, require a meaningful change in the party—get in their way. Our guests are the Revolving Door Project's Kenny Stancil and Henry Burke.

Published: 11 June 2025

In Ep. 222, "The Empire Strikes First Part I: Party Elites Who Lost to Trump (Twice) Blame Everyone But Themselves," we detail how our media allows the same party flacks who got the Dems into this mess, control over the narrative of how to get them out. With guest UC-Berkeley professor Jake Grumbach.

Transcribed - Published: 4 June 2025

In this episode we detail demagogues' favorite faux populist schtick of taking scientific studies out of context and mocking them, often with help from mainstream media. with guest Brenda Ekwurzel, director of climate science for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Transcribed - Published: 28 May 2025

In this News Brief, we we break down an object lesson in racist US-Israeli national security state toadyism, double standards, and runaway condescension.  

Transcribed - Published: 22 May 2025

In this News Brief we are joined by Taya Graham and Stephen Janis of The Real News Network to discuss their new documentary, "Freddie Gray: A Decade of Struggle" about the lessons, pitfalls and genuine reforms stemming from the 2015 Baltimore Uprisings. You can watch the documentary here: therealnews.com/freddie-gray-the-…ng-10-years-later

Transcribed - Published: 7 May 2025

"American Extremists Aiding Radicals Across Border," trumpeted the Detroit Free Press in 1919. "707 Illegal Aliens Arrested in Checkpoint Crackdown," reported the Los Angeles Times in 1987. "87 Bronx gang members responsible for nine years of murders and drug-dealing charged in largest takedown in NYC history," announced the New York Daily News in 2016. "'Top secret' Hamas documents show that terrorists intentionally targeted elementary schools and a youth center," claimed NBC News in 2023. Each of these headlines includes a label for a certain type of Bad Guy. Whether it’s the "Extremist," the "Illegal Alien," the "Gang Member," or the "Terrorist," these terms—and their cousins—seek to exceptionalize the alleged transgressions of their targets, separate them from both the law and history and dehumanize them, all while priming media audiences for crueler laws, harsher policing, longer incarceration and sometimes even extrajudicial punishment. The terms, of course, don’t have clear, universally accepted definitions—nor are they supposed to—their use is often heavily racialized and, by their very nature, subject to the whims and ideologies of the Security State and the media doing its bidding. What effects, then, do these Bad Guy Labels have on public perceptions? How do they serve to foreclose critical thinking about who is deemed inside the bounds of due process and humanization and who is categorically an other in urgent need of disappearing and punishment? On this episode, we examine four thought-terminating Bad Guy labels, analyze their origins, why they rose to prominence and explain how they are selectively evoked in order to turn off people’s brains and open up space for quick and cruel state violence. Our guest is attorney and author Alec Karakatsanis.

Transcribed - Published: 30 April 2025

"Poverty plan hit for fraud, waste," reported the Associated Press in 1966. "Study says government waste is unbelievable,” insisted United Press International in 1983. "Beneath Trump’s Chaotic Spending Freeze: An Idea That Crosses Party Lines," announced The New York Times in January of this year. It’s an argument that dates back decades, even centuries: Government is bloated, spending wastefully, and enabling widespread fraud and abuse. The only solution to this waste, fraud, and abuse is to root it out. Cutting salaries, personnel, or entire programs or agencies, it follows, will streamline government bodies, saving millions to billions of dollars.  But who gets to decide what’s “wasteful” in the first place? How are these concepts routinely racialized? What effect does it have on a public dependent on social programs and essential government services like safety inspections? And why should governments be expected to “save” money, when their job—at least in theory— isn’t to make money in the first place, but—again in theory—improve the welfare of its citizens? On this episode, we detail the past and present of the “waste, fraud, and abuse” framing, looking at how it’s long been used to justify the degradation of essential social programs; mischaracterize governments as businesses; and weaken protections for workers, renters, and everyone else who isn’t a capital-owning member of the elite.  Our guest is Death Panel's Beatrice Adler-Bolton.

Transcribed - Published: 23 April 2025

"Poverty plan hit for fraud, waste," reported the Associated Press in 1966. "Study says government waste is unbelievable," insisted United Press International in 1983. "Beneath Trump's Chaotic Spending Freeze: An Idea That Crosses Party Lines," announced The New York Times in January of this year. It's an argument that dates back decades, even centuries: Government is bloated, spending wastefully, and enabling widespread fraud and abuse. The only solution to this waste, fraud, and abuse is to root it out. Cutting salaries, personnel, or entire programs or agencies, it follows, will streamline government bodies, saving millions to billions of dollars.  But who gets to decide what's "wasteful" in the first place? How are these concepts routinely racialized? What effect does it have on a public dependent on social programs and essential government services like safety inspections? And why should governments be expected to "save" money, when their job—at least in theory— isn't to make money in the first place, but—again in theory—improve the welfare of its citizens? On this episode, we detail the past and present of the "waste, fraud, and abuse" framing, looking at how it's long been used to justify the degradation of essential social programs; mischaracterize governments as businesses; and weaken protections for workers, renters, and everyone else who isn't a capital-owning member of the elite.  Our guest is Death Panel's Beatrice Adler-Bolton.

Published: 23 April 2025

"Senate Weighs Investing $120 Billion in Science to Counter China," trumpeted The New York Times in 2021. "A New Economic Patriotism Can Help Unite Our Divided Congress," argued Newsweek in 2023. "US cedes ground to China with 'self-inflicted wound' of USAid shutdown, analysts say," cautioned The Guardian in 2025. In recent years, we've been exposed to the latest version of a centuries-old geopolitical message: We all have a common enemy, and we all need to unite to fight it by making our own country stronger. That enemy—most commonly China—is threatening to outpace, if it isn't already outpacing, the US in infrastructural investment, educational programs, technological development, and elsewhere, and we need to devote millions, billions, even trillions of dollars to restoring the vitality of our institutions in order to reverse this trend. But why must defeating an "enemy" be the justification for policy that has the potential to benefit the public? Why should we just accept the premise that there must be an "enemy" to compete against and defeat? Why can't policy be enacted for the sole purpose of improving people's lives? And how does this messaging about the threat of a looming adversary serve the ruling class? On this episode, we detail the timeworn trope of the common enemy as a "unifying" device, looking at how increasingly so-called progressives are appealing to feel-good sentiments of unity and to the genuine needs for sound infrastructure, robust social safety nets, corporate regulation, and functional institutions in order to sell the idea that there is, and always will be, a shadowy bad guy that must be vanquished.  Our guest is historian, professor and author Greg Grandin.

Published: 16 April 2025

"Senate Weighs Investing $120 Billion in Science to Counter China," trumpeted The New York Times in 2021. "A New Economic Patriotism Can Help Unite Our Divided Congress," argued Newsweek in 2023. "US cedes ground to China with ‘self-inflicted wound’ of USAid shutdown, analysts say," cautioned The Guardian in 2025. In recent years, we’ve been exposed to the latest version of a centuries-old geopolitical message: We all have a common enemy, and we all need to unite to fight it by making our own country stronger. That enemy—most commonly China—is threatening to outpace, if it isn’t already outpacing, the US in infrastructural investment, educational programs, technological development, and elsewhere, and we need to devote millions, billions, even trillions of dollars to restoring the vitality of our institutions in order to reverse this trend. But why must defeating an "enemy" be the justification for policy that has the potential to benefit the public? Why should we just accept the premise that there must be an "enemy" to compete against and defeat? Why can’t policy be enacted for the sole purpose of improving people’s lives? And how does this messaging about the threat of a looming adversary serve the ruling class? On this episode, we detail the timeworn trope of the common enemy as a "unifying" device, looking at how increasingly so-called progressives are appealing to feel-good sentiments of unity and to the genuine needs for sound infrastructure, robust social safety nets, corporate regulation, and functional institutions in order to sell the idea that there is, and always will be, a shadowy bad guy that must be vanquished.  Our guest is historian, professor and author Greg Grandin.

Transcribed - Published: 16 April 2025

In this public News Brief, we discuss the media and high-profile Democratic Party leaders and 'Free Speech' crowd's muted—or, in many cases, completely silent—response to the greatest attack on free speech in recent memory: Trump's kidnapping and disappearing of Palestinian solidarity students.

Published: 2 April 2025

In this public News Brief, we discuss the media and high-profile Democratic Party leaders and 'Free Speech' crowd's muted—or, in many cases, completely silent—response to the greatest attack on free speech in recent memory: Trump's kidnapping and disappearing of Palestinian solidarity students.

Transcribed - Published: 2 April 2025

“Israel built an ‘AI factory’ for war. It unleashed it in Gaza,” laments the Washington Post. “Hospitals Are Reporting More Insurance Denials. Is AI Driving Them?,” reports Newsweek. “AI Raising the Rent? San Francisco Could Be the First City to Ban the Practice,” announces San Francisco’s KQED. Within the last few years, and particularly the last few months, we’ve heard this refrain: AI is the reason for an abuse committed by a corporation, military, or other powerful entity. All of a sudden, the argument goes, the adoption of “faulty” or “overly simplified” AI caused a breakdown of normal operations: spikes in health insurance claims denials, the skyrocketing of consumer prices, the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. If not for AI, it follows, these industries and militaries, in all likelihood, would implement fairer policies and better killing protocols. We’ll admit: the narrative seems compelling at first glance. There are major dangers in incorporating AI into corporate and military procedures. But in these cases, the AI isn’t the culprit; the people making the decisions are. UnitedHealthcare would deny claims regardless of the tools at its disposal. Landlords would raise rents with or without automated software. The IDF would kill civilians no matter what technology was, or wasn’t, available to do so. So why do we keep hearing that AI is the problem? What’s the point of this frame and why is it becoming so common as a responsibility-avoidance framing? On today’s episode, we’ll dissect the genre of “investigative” reporting on the dangers of AI, examining how it serves as a limited hangout, offering controlled criticism while ultimately shifting responsibility toward faceless technologies and away from powerful people. Later on the show, we’ll be speaking with Steven Renderos, Executive Director of MediaJustice, a national racial justice organization that advances the media and technology rights of people of color. He is the creator and co-host, with the great Brandi Collins-Dexter, Bring Receipts, a politics and pop culture podcast and is executive producer of Revolutionary Spirits, a 4-part audio series on the life and martyrdom of Mexican revolutionary leader Francisco Madero.

Transcribed - Published: 26 March 2025

In this Citations Needed News Brief interview, we're joined by Rutgers professor Eric Blanc to discuss his new book "We Are The Union," and lay out how any meaningful resistance to Trump and Trumpism has to be grounded in a growing, strong, confrontational labor movement.

Transcribed - Published: 19 March 2025

In this Citations Needed News Brief interview, we're joined by Rutgers professor Eric Blanc to discuss his new book "We Are The Union," and lay out how any meaningful resistance to Trump and Trumpism has to be grounded in a growing, strong, confrontational labor movement.

Published: 19 March 2025

In this News Brief, we detail the struggle to continue framing Israel as a reluctant, defensive peace-seeking party despite its openly genocidal rhetoric and acts.    

Transcribed - Published: 18 March 2025

In this News Brief, we detail the struggle to continue framing Israel as a reluctant, defensive peace-seeking party despite its openly genocidal rhetoric and acts.    

Published: 18 March 2025

In this News Brief, we detail how Center-Left institutions and media have cynically wielded "lived experience" claptrap to assist Trump's overtly fascistic crackdown on dissenting speech.

Published: 12 March 2025

In this News Brief, we detail how Center-Left institutions and media have cynically wielded "lived experience" claptrap to assist Trump's overtly fascistic crackdown on dissenting speech.

Transcribed - Published: 12 March 2025

"It's fair to call the deteriorating situation at the US/Mexican border a crisis," declared NBC's Meet the Press in 2021. "[CNN anchor Dana] Bash presses Netanyahu on Gaza death toll: 'Is Israel doing everything possible to... avoid civilian casualties?'," boasted CNN's State of the Union in 2023. "Principle over party… The latest high-profile Republican endorsement for Harris. And she got another Cheney endorsement," announced ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. These shows – ABC's This Week, NBC's Meet the Press, CNN's State of the Union, CBS's Face the Nation – are fixtures of a major genre of television: the Sunday morning news show. Since the 1940s, these weekly shows have featured panel interviews with government officials, lawmakers, candidates, and other political figures, usually from the US, as part of their stated missions to "tackle pressing issues," produce robust discourse on current events, and hold electeds and aspiring electeds accountable. A relic from a different era, these Sunday News Show still loom large today. No, they don't have particularly high ratings, but much like the role editorial boards of major newspapers play, they matter to people who matter. They shape the agenda and tell lawmakers, advisers, CEOs and other people who wield power across our political, economic and social systems what to care about that week and how to analyze the current moment. But to what extent do they serve any real journalistic function? To what extent do they actually ask difficult and challenging questions? Do the Sunday morning shows truly illuminate our political moments and interrogate the powerful, or essentially do the opposite? And what effect do these shows, known for "setting the agenda" in Washington, have on policymakers, news media, and the public? On this episode, we discuss the history, ideology, and effects of Sunday morning news shows, look at how—despite their lofty claims to challenging journalism—they prioritize and revel in prestige and access, flattering existing power structures and further enabling reactionary policy. Our guest is FAIR's Julie Hollar.

Published: 12 March 2025

“It’s fair to call the deteriorating situation at the US/Mexican border a crisis,” declared NBC’s Meet the Press in 2021. “[CNN anchor Dana] Bash presses Netanyahu on Gaza death toll: 'Is Israel doing everything possible to... avoid civilian casualties?',” boasted CNN’s State of the Union in 2023. “Principle over party… The latest high-profile Republican endorsement for Harris. And she got another Cheney endorsement,” announced ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. These shows – ABC’s This Week, NBC’s Meet the Press, CNN’s State of the Union, CBS’s Face the Nation – are fixtures of a major genre of television: the Sunday morning news show. Since the 1940s, these weekly shows have featured panel interviews with government officials, lawmakers, candidates, and other political figures, usually from the US, as part of their stated missions to “tackle pressing issues,” produce robust discourse on current events, and hold electeds and aspiring electeds accountable. A relic from a different era, these Sunday News Show still loom large today. No, they don’t have particularly high ratings, but much like the role editorial boards of major newspapers play, they matter to people who matter. They shape the agenda and tell lawmakers, advisers, CEOs and other people who wield power across our political, economic and social systems what to care about that week and how to analyze the current moment. But to what extent do they serve any real journalistic function? To what extent do they actually ask difficult and challenging questions? Do the Sunday morning shows truly illuminate our political moments and interrogate the powerful, or essentially do the opposite? And what effect do these shows, known for “setting the agenda” in Washington, have on policymakers, news media, and the public? On this episode, we discuss the history, ideology, and effects of Sunday morning news shows, look at how—despite their lofty claims to challenging journalism—they prioritize and revel in prestige and access, flattering existing power structures and further enabling reactionary policy. Our guest is FAIR's Julie Hollar.

Transcribed - Published: 12 March 2025