Citations Needed

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.