What Bernie’s former press secretary thinks of media bias | Andrew Yang | Yang Speaks

 

New York Times and corporate bias is invisible.  Briana joy gray shares her experience getting the Times to say just what had happened at a NAACP conference in Detroit when Bernie was the only candidate to get a standing ovation and was the number two candidate and the narrative was that Bernie had a black problem.

Starts: 22:57

 

14:40
i’m a huge fan of the intercepts
14:41
journalism everything i’ve seen out of
14:43
there
14:43
just seemed so real and on point
14:47
uh is different than other outlets that
14:49
way
14:50
and i think there’s like a major problem
14:53
with what some people call
14:54
corporate media am one of those people
14:59
oh no i mean hey like i i like that as
15:02
moniker
15:03
it makes you think you’re like yeah
15:04
corporate media and then you’re like
15:06
what’s the opposite of corporate media
15:07
so i i think the massive crisis in
15:09
journalism um you know
15:11
the first thing it’s like a layer cake
15:13
and it’s all terrible
15:14
um but the first layer is that over to
15:16
the local papers
15:17
have gone out of business and so if
15:19
you’re in a community it’s like no local
15:20
news like how that can you vote on
15:22
anything that’s going on in your
15:23
community and then you have the national
15:25
media was completely polarized at
15:27
various directions
15:29
because your economic incentives drive
15:31
you that way
15:32
and then you have the social media layer
15:34
on top of it that describes you even
15:36
more to extremity even into like
15:38
different versions of reality where at
15:39
this point
15:40
it’s like you know up is down left is
15:42
right you know
15:43
like vote totals or whatever we say they
15:44
are yeah well i have mixed feelings
15:46
about the
15:47
the um social media piece but to your
15:49
point about the the independent media
15:51
versus corporate media piece
15:52
you know there’s a legitimate criticism
15:54
that can be made about the intercept’s
15:55
funding model as well but there is a big
15:57
difference
15:58
when you have uh to the incentive
16:00
structure when you’re working at a place
16:01
like the intercept where
16:02
you don’t have requirements to get a
16:04
certain number of clicks or publish a
16:06
certain number of articles a day
16:08
um you can spend time doing research and
16:10
reporting without the kind of financial
16:12
pressures of
16:13
the typical ad revenue model because
16:15
it’s funded by
16:16
you know a billionaire there’s like a
16:18
large amount of money that’s guaranteed
16:20
to the intercept to do its work
16:21
regardless of how much money
16:23
it makes um whereas other outlets tend
16:26
to have to make sure that this is one of
16:28
the good
16:28
this is one of the billionaires right
16:30
like well you know that’s what i
16:31
when i say that there’s a legitimate
16:32
criticism legitimate critique to be made
16:35
of the internet study model there are
16:36
pros and cons of that obviously but
16:38
there are firewalls up between the
16:40
intercept and um
16:41
the the ebay billionaire who’s the one
16:43
that funds the intercept
16:45
um and there are a lot of on the record
16:47
i am a fan
16:48
of uh omidyar i think pierre omidyar has
16:52
done so much good work
16:53
not just the intercept but i ran a
16:56
non-profit for years and the omidyar
16:58
social fellows and the social innovation
17:00
investments
17:01
he’s made i think the fact that he
17:04
already saw the problems with journalism
17:06
and was trying to do something about it
17:08
early on uh that there are
17:11
um legitimate criticisms of our winner
17:13
take all economic system but
17:15
in like in my mind omidyar is among the
17:18
most benevolent
17:19
uh wealthy people out there yeah i think
17:23
look the the point is not ever
17:26
in the critiques that come from the left
17:27
about the massive accumulation of wealth
17:29
etc
17:30
is not to say that any one individual is
17:33
you know
17:33
evil or that you know there aren’t
17:36
people who can do good things with their
17:37
wealth the idea you know do you say
17:39
winner take all obviously um
17:41
uh a non-giorados wrote this great book
17:44
about this this idea
17:46
the idea is we shouldn’t have to rely on
17:48
private charity
17:50
um to fix the problems of the world and
17:52
that the enormous accumulation of wealth
17:54
in the hands of very few people
17:56
can have really um um styming effects
17:59
for
18:00
journalism the fourth estate our
18:02
democracy you know the ability of
18:04
someone like
18:05
you know michael bloomberg who was what
18:06
the ninth richest person
18:08
on the planet to enter the race what
18:10
that means is that you know
18:12
he has the money to fund his famed
18:14
mayor’s school right
18:15
where so many people were arguably
18:18
willing to endorse him and particularly
18:20
a lot of black mirrors it did seem like
18:22
a lot of mayors
18:24
were like bloomberg and you’re like oh
18:27
maybe there’s something going on there
18:29
yeah and it’s not it’s not again that
18:30
the mayors are bad people or like
18:32
you know wanting to do a bad thing but
18:34
if you go through as mayor’s i had
18:36
nothing
18:37
for the record if i were mayor of a city
18:40
and mike bloomberg had
18:42
uh funded something in my city and then
18:44
decided to do something
18:46
you know like i i’m not mad at anyone
18:47
who said look the best thing for my
18:49
community
18:50
is for me to get on on board with this
18:51
campaign well here’s the thing
18:53
you can there’s it’s one thing to to
18:56
critique the
18:57
system the system is that a lot of
18:59
mayors particularly these black mayors
19:00
from
19:01
poorer districts right who are from
19:02
predominantly minority districts who
19:04
have
19:04
a harder time raising money same goes
19:06
for black disproportionately black
19:09
congress people right who are similarly
19:10
coming from districts where it’s harder
19:12
to earn money because they have a lower
19:13
income population
19:14
um for all the historical reasons that
19:16
we understand you know tend to be more
19:18
susceptible to these kinds of
19:20
buyouts and that’s not because they’re
19:21
worse people it’s because of these
19:23
structural issues in terms of their
19:25
inability to raise funds and the fact
19:27
that when especially when you’re a
19:28
congress person your number one job is
19:29
to raise funds for the party and there’s
19:31
enormous pressures on you
19:32
to get that money so the critique is not
19:35
to say
19:36
you know keisha lance bottoms is a
19:37
problem is to say what can we do to make
19:39
it so
19:40
keisha lance bottoms is more free to
19:42
vote her conscience to reflect the
19:44
interest
19:45
of the people that she presides over um
19:48
her constituents instead of feeling the
19:51
need to take this money and then to give
19:52
an endorsement
19:53
i don’t remember i thought keisha lance
19:54
bottoms was for joe but there was a
19:57
there were a number of other young
19:58
mayors there were sorry
20:01
yeah i’m sorry i didn’t mean to like
20:02
throw her in particular under the bus
20:03
but she was the first
20:04
the first uh southern black black mayor
20:07
that came to mind she is very cool
20:08
um you know spent a lot of time in in
20:10
atlanta of late
20:12
so one of the things that people i don’t
20:14
think um
20:15
make enough of bree is that at this
20:17
point
20:18
vast wealth often technology wealth and
20:20
the media have now
20:22
converged where you have these legacy
20:25
media properties that can’t make money
20:27
or can’t make enough money to keep
20:29
people happy
20:30
and so then some tech mogul titan
20:34
who does not like sports as much decides
20:36
to buy the publication
20:38
so mark benioff buys time magazine
20:42
jeff bezos buys the washington post
20:44
laureen powell jobs buys the atlantic
20:46
now some of these people i like uh you
20:49
know like
20:50
like some of them i like less
20:53
but but there’s definitely a thing where
20:56
um where tech money and you
21:00
i guess you could use the intercept as
21:01
an example though we didn’t buy it it’s
21:02
not like a legacy media property that um
21:05
that omdr decided to buy um but there
21:08
has been this convergence
21:09
and i don’t know if people this is
21:12
something that i
21:13
actually am very very frustrated by is
21:15
that there’s this veneer of media
21:16
objectivity
21:18
um where it’s like nothing to see here
21:19
don’t worry about it where objective
21:21
we’re objective
21:21
and then the ownership structure has
21:23
completely changed
21:25
there was a point when you had these
21:26
firms that were very profitable firms
21:29
you know newspapers even great business
21:31
for generations
21:32
uh and then that business has gotten
21:34
decimated so now
21:36
you have two thousand local papers out
21:39
of existence
21:40
over half of the papers that still exist
21:41
are owned by private equity so just like
21:43
ringing them for cash
21:44
and they don’t really care about the
21:45
local coverage so much and then you have
21:47
the legacy publications that have often
21:49
gotten consolidated or brought up by
21:51
their individuals
21:52
or private equity or other firms and
21:54
then you have the more successful
21:56
national media organizations that have
21:58
become polarized because
22:00
of audience share
22:03
generally like if you decide to become a
22:06
little more partisan then you can
22:07
actually get a more consistent audience
22:09
yeah i think that’s an accurate
22:11
diagnosis
22:12
and to your one of your first points
22:16
what’s partly so frustrating is in
22:19
addition to the bias that it exists but
22:21
that there’s a certain
22:22
invisibility to the bias among
22:24
mainstream
22:25
corporate outlets right so i will often
22:28
hear people say if i tweet out an
22:29
intercept article
22:30
oh gosh that’s your that’s your source
22:32
for saying x y and z i’m not gonna
22:34
believe it
22:35
which is kind of the opposite of what
22:37
you should be thinking
22:39
um you should trust a relatively more
22:40
independent outlet over
22:42
you know frankly the the new york times
22:45
i mean i
22:45
i know that it sounds people might be
22:47
tired of hearing about bernie bros and
22:49
media bias
22:50
um and i understand that but i’ll tell
22:53
you
22:54
working um on the calm side and the
22:56
campaign
22:57
oh my gosh yeah that’s true you have all
22:58
the inside scoop what the heck was going
23:01
on over there
23:01
you know the conversations that i was
23:03
having with people
23:05
in an effort to just say what had
23:07
happened right
23:08
so there was an episode where
23:11
um i was on the road uh bernie sanders
23:15
and all of the candidates i think almost
23:16
everybody maybe you were there andrew i
23:17
can’t quite remember
23:18
had uh spoken at i believe an naacp
23:22
conference in detroit
23:23
and everybody spoke but
23:26
bernie sanders was the only candidate to
23:28
get a standing ovation from the room
23:30
and when i read the new york times
23:32
write-up of the event
23:34
uh the words bernie or andor sanders
23:36
were not mentioned once in this article
23:38
at the time bernie was a number two
23:40
candidate in the polls
23:42
right so i reached out to the author
23:44
this must have driven you
23:45
insane right especially given all of the
23:48
narrative around bernie having a black
23:50
problem right he’s the only one at an
23:51
naacp conference who gets a standing
23:53
ovation from the room
23:54
so i reached out to the the writer who i
23:56
had recently met at netroots
23:58
and i thought we had a lovely talk and i
24:01
said hey i just wanted to you know reach
24:03
out and ask about why it was that bernie
24:04
wasn’t mentioned especially since he did
24:06
so well and because he is
24:07
literally the number two and he’s a
24:10
black audience
24:11
right and he said oh i must have been in
24:14
the bathroom when that happened
24:17
no way so so i said oh okay well the
24:22
footage went up immediately after you
24:24
know you could have watched it
24:26
you can watch your bathroom break
24:28
footage this is like a football game
24:29
where you have
24:30
you have tevo right and you know if you
24:33
were gonna time a bathroom
24:34
a bathroom break i perhaps would have
24:36
timed it not during
24:37
the number two candidate in the race’s
24:39
remarks but you could wait till yang
24:44
yeah we all know that you were a dark
24:45
horse and people were sleeping on you
24:46
for too long
24:48
um but you know you know what you know i
24:51
think it’s true
24:52
but you know his response at that point
24:53
was you know
24:56
not good and relatively hostile and he
24:58
pivoted to some other concerns he
24:59
thought
25:00
you know he thought that the campaign
25:01
had unfairly hit beat up on one of his
25:03
um colleagues because she had written a
25:05
piece that had gotten a lot of criticism
25:06
not from us but from the public because
25:08
it was not a great piece and i was like
25:09
well this isn’t really my issue and
25:11
the conversation devolved but that kind
25:12
of thing happened again and again there
25:14
was another time
25:15
a journalist had written that bernie was
25:18
not not gonna make the debate after the
25:19
heart attack
25:20
that he was going to miss the next
25:21
debate after the heart attack it was
25:22
said declaratively like that
25:24
and so i reached out and said okay well
25:25
all the doctors are saying this kind of
25:28
procedure that he had usually has a
25:30
four-day recovery window
25:31
and people are back out on the golf
25:32
course or whatever and could you would
25:35
you mind
25:36
changing that um and he said no
25:39
absolutely not
25:40
uh i i’m just i’m not gonna i said on
25:43
what basis
25:43
you know this person has a doctor in
25:45
front of their name but they’re not a
25:46
medical doctor i said you are not
25:48
your writer he was an editor your writer
25:50
should not be quoting you
25:51
as a source of medical expertise as to
25:54
when bernie sanders
25:55
can attend a debate and of course he was
25:57
at the debate
25:59
right so it was this kind of thing over
26:01
and over and over again you know bernie
26:03
wins nevada
26:04
and um chris matthews is talking about
26:06
how people are going to be
26:08
you know chopping heads off in central
26:09
park bernie you know bernie supposed to
26:11
be chopping people’s heads off in
26:12
central park
26:13
there’s no mention of the fact that he
26:14
got 70 of the latino vote and how
26:16
important latino vote was going to be in
26:17
the general election
26:19
right um you you had a person bringing a
26:23
swastika a nazi
26:24
flag to a burning rally and getting no
26:26
coverage but you know the use of some
26:28
snake emojis under other candidates
26:30
um you know instagram pages being a 45
26:33
minute
26:34
interview subject for rachel maddow you
26:36
know and on and on and on
26:38
and important things were happening
26:39
right the country was going into a
26:41
crisis toward the end of the primary
26:43
bernie sanders was standing there with a
26:46
lot of the answers and you know assad
26:47
has been championing
26:48
universal basic income we needed big
26:51
ticket ideas
26:52
to get us out of this crisis which we
26:54
all saw coming down the pike
26:55
by the end of the primary season and
26:58
right now
26:59
we are struggling we have gotten this
27:01
stimulus package now that is
27:04
half of what was being offered up prior
27:06
to the
27:07
election and none of the substantive
27:11
structural changes
27:12
that were on offer managed to make it
27:14
through the primary season
27:16
and it’s it’s demoralizing to have seen
27:18
such promise and inspiring ideas from
27:21
people like you
27:22
people like bernie people like elizabeth
27:24
warren and to see
27:25
none of that really reflected in our
27:28
party at present
27:29
your experiences on the bernie campaign
27:33
with the media
27:34
are reflective uh and so i i want to dig
27:37
into this uh
27:38
more because and i also don’t want to be
27:40
like oh
27:41
you know like that like media this is
27:43
that
27:44
um but hearing your perspective is
27:47
fascinating
27:49
[Music]
27:55
all right if you’re like me or let’s say
27:58
like anybody
27:59
in this pandemic your mental health is
28:01
probably going for a
28:02
bit of a rollercoaster ride not being
28:05
able to see friends not be able to go
28:06
out
28:07
uh your job is probably different i know
28:10
these feelings i’ve had on myself
28:12
and it’s one of the reasons why i’m
28:14
happy
28:15
to be sponsored by betterhelp for this
28:17
podcast because
28:18
they’ve got some really great tools and
28:20
a great tech platform to assist
28:21
you with this mental health challenge
28:23
we’re all going through so betterhelp
28:24
will assess your needs and match you
28:26
with your own
28:26
licensed professional therapist so you
28:28
can connect in this kind of safe
28:30
very personal private online environment
28:32
it’s very convenient and you can start
28:34
communicating you sign up you start
28:35
communicating another 24 hours pretty
28:36
cool so it’s not really self-help it’s
28:38
just professional
28:39
counseling so you can send a message to
28:41
your counselor any time
28:42
get timely thoughtful responses plus you
28:45
schedule weekly
28:46
video or phone session so you can kind
28:47
of do it at your own schedule
28:49
and you never have to sit in an
28:50
uncomfortable waiting room you don’t
28:51
need to tell anybody
28:53
um it’s honestly pretty great and it’s
28:55
they’ve got licensed professionals for
28:57
anywhere and anything that includes
28:59
depression stress
29:00
anxiety relationships sleeping trauma
29:02
anger family conflicts
29:04
lgbt matters grief self-esteem for me it
29:07
was
29:08
energy and purpose um and frankly just
29:10
someone to talk to
29:11
it’s great um everything and anything
29:13
you share is confidential and it’s
29:14
convenient professional
29:15
and affordable so i want you guys to
29:17
check this out um
29:19
because they’re our sponsor and we’re
29:20
proud to be sponsored by them on this
29:22
podcast so
29:23
if you want to start living a happier
29:25
life today as a listener of yang speaks
29:27
because they’re sponsoring us you get 10
29:29
off your first month by visiting
29:32
betterhelp.com
29:33
yang that’s better help b t t e r
29:37
h e l p dot com slash yang join over one
29:40
million people
29:42
who’ve taken charge of their mental
29:43
health like me that’s betterhelp.com
29:52
yang
29:56
so when you talk about corporate media
29:59
uh
30:00
sometimes it brings to mind for me it’s
30:03
like okay
30:04
what is the uncorporate media like what
30:07
is a
30:08
source that you can actually just shrug
30:10
and say they don’t have any incentives
30:12
around suppressing one candidate or
30:14
elevating another
30:16
uh and uh one outlet that people do
30:20
trust more than others um is
30:23
npr which is publicly funded uh you also
30:26
have c-span which is the most boring
30:28
thing in the world but it literally just
30:29
but it just like sticks a camera on
30:31
people and just like it lets them work
30:32
um
30:33
so i had a store like a time when i was
30:35
in a hotel in iowa after a day of
30:37
campaigning
30:38
and then i turned on tv and i was just
30:40
flipping channels then i saw c-span i
30:42
saw myself
30:43
and i was like like what’s this that was
30:45
an event i’d done that day
30:48
and it was just presented without
30:50
commentary it was just me hanging out
30:51
with high school kids answering
30:53
questions
30:54
and i was like wow uh this is
30:57
up um at c-span uh
31:00
very very different than the cable news
31:02
coverage which has a completely
31:03
different rhythm
31:04
and presentation style so
31:08
if we were to want to mend journalism
31:12
like do you have any ideas uh like i
31:15
i think that there should be much more
31:16
public investment in journalism
31:18
i do not see any other way because right
31:20
now you have the corporate incentives
31:22
going one direction
31:23
and then in my mind it’s either
31:25
philanthropy or public resources those
31:27
are really the only two
31:29
and the tech version is philanthropy
31:32
essentially because if you look at the
31:33
wealth and the people who care about
31:34
this it ends up
31:35
being techies very often um
31:38
and so if you don’t love that and you
31:41
know their ups and downs to it like i
31:42
you know i think some of them do a great
31:44
job i’m
31:46
a fan of the atlantic’s work like you
31:48
know i love the atlantic
31:49
um i think intercept is great work um
31:52
but then you pretty quickly land on
31:54
public uh support for journalism
31:57
and then there are a lot of folks that
31:58
are like oh you can’t have the
31:59
government from journalism because
32:01
like you know it’ll be corrupt orwellian
32:02
big brother like you know they’ll like
32:04
censor everything and the rest of it and
32:05
you’re like
32:06
well there is like the bbc which is
32:09
publicly funded and they seem okay you
32:11
have npr
32:12
seems okay you have uh you know
32:15
different
32:15
examples of this throughout the world
32:17
yeah so the
32:19
the conversation about kind of
32:21
government versus private funding is the
32:22
same conversation that ends up happening
32:24
about
32:24
between republicans and democrats about
32:26
big government versus all government
32:28
right and what what is missing from that
32:29
conversation often is like sure
32:32
hypothetically the government could have
32:34
could be corrupt
32:35
but we all know there’s an enormous
32:38
amount of corruption
32:39
in the business world and there are no
32:41
democratic mechanisms for us to do
32:42
anything about that
32:43
so at least when we we have government
32:45
we have some semblance of
32:47
democracy still and we can vote people
32:49
in and out and have an accountability
32:51
mechanism
32:52
nobody really talks about okay we have
32:54
the free market how are we going to hold
32:55
jeff bezos who’s richer than god
32:57
accountable for anything that he does to
32:58
any of his employees et cetera
33:00
but there’s a third option right there
33:02
is independently
33:03
um subscriber-funded media that’s
33:06
neither government or business based and
33:08
that’s where you have outlets like
33:09
current affairs where i’m a contributing
33:11
editor you have outlets like
33:13
the intercept is partially independently
33:15
funded they are trying increasingly to
33:16
get off
33:17
of um peers funding and when people
33:19
subscribe it helps them to be able to do
33:21
that
33:21
um you have outlets like david sirota
33:24
who was my colleague on the campaign but
33:25
a veteran journalist of 20 years before
33:27
that
33:28
who started his own blog the daily
33:29
poster you have a lot of people
33:31
advocate for defecting from their
33:33
journalistic institution glenn greenwald
33:35
recently left the intercept to start his
33:36
own blog
33:37
um that is independently funded on
33:39
patreon where people
33:41
give money to these people you know to
33:43
these individuals
33:44
or in david’s rhoda’s case he’s trying
33:46
to start not just an individual platform
33:47
but a platform where a lot of
33:49
progressive journalists can come and
33:50
write about
33:51
corruption and other kinds of issues
33:53
that get very little hearing
33:55
in the mainstream media but are really
33:57
at the root of a lot of the problems in
33:58
this country
33:59
through his outlet called the daily
34:01
poster so i do think that
34:03
people are finding a lot of interest in
34:05
this and it’s a sustainable model
34:07
to a certain degree but if we are ever
34:09
going to be able to compete
34:11
with the msnbc’s and cnns and fox news
34:14
of the world
34:14
i agree that something more substantial
34:16
has to change and i think
34:18
viewers demanding more of those
34:20
corporate institutions
34:22
would be really helpful because
34:24
currently i think the average american
34:27
believes that those that reporting out
34:29
of quote unquote liberal institutions
34:31
liberal
34:32
um media institutions is being done in
34:34
good faith
34:35
and they don’t know that so many of like
34:38
msnbc
34:39
newscasters um pundits are conservative
34:42
they don’t even know that some of the
34:44
people who are giving advice to the
34:45
democratic party on a daily basis
34:47
you know george bush’s former comms
34:49
woman has a prime time spot at msnbc
34:52
you know fair vote in other
34:53
organizations that have assessed media
34:54
bias
34:55
show that the average msnbc panel is
34:57
skewed more conservative has more
34:59
republicans on it
35:00
than the average fox news panel you know
35:02
and so people are digesting this
35:04
information in good faith not even
35:05
really realizing
35:07
that the institutions that they think
35:08
are liberal and have a liberal bias and
35:10
that they want a liberal bias
35:11
aren’t even liberal they are echoing the
35:13
same kinds of right-wing talking points
35:15
that you get on fox news
35:16
and in fact due to this kind of weird
35:18
populist surge that’s happening
35:20
on the right sometimes you get a fox
35:22
news pundit who’s more willing to talk
35:23
honestly about
35:24
something like trade policies or
35:27
health care even than some of the msnbc
35:30
hosts
35:33
there are two things i’d like to suggest
35:34
here one is
35:36
it’s not left or right anymore it’s kind
35:38
of
35:39
in the institution or outside the
35:41
institution and i love the folks like
35:42
you who are like trying to
35:44
like create the outside of the
35:46
institution
35:47
um ecosystem and voices the second thing
35:51
is that i love the subscriber model
35:56
um that you and others and just
35:59
to be like i don’t know whether this is
36:01
true you’re working at current affairs
36:02
as an editor
36:03
um are are you now at a point where
36:06
you’re generating subscription for
36:07
yourself personally or
36:08
like are you working for a um a
36:11
publication
36:12
so i don’t i don’t get paid by current
36:14
affairs i’m kind of there as a
36:16
um you know an advisory in an advisory
36:19
role as a contributing editor and stuff
36:21
like that
36:21
i my income comes through my podcast bad
36:24
faith so
36:25
you know my co-host virgil texas and i
36:27
and he’s from chapel trap house
36:29
check out bad faith it’s a great podcast
36:31
i’ve been there
36:32
yes you have it’s great everything is
36:34
worth your time and donation don’t you
36:36
want to support brie
36:37
and virgil i appreciate that andrew
36:41
but yeah we you know the subscriber
36:42
model has worked
36:44
um you know for a relatively small sum
36:46
of money each month
36:47
people can unlock you know a ton of
36:50
premium episodes plus we put out a free
36:52
episode every week
36:53
um and they get a lens on the news that
36:56
they wouldn’t
36:57
otherwise get now everyone you know
36:59
doesn’t work
37:00
as well for everyone obviously we’re
37:01
advantaged by the fact that we had
37:03
you know platforms because we knew who
37:04
we already yeah you’re like national
37:06
voices and one
37:07
of the things that that too bree like i
37:09
i struggle with too because you know
37:10
you to yourself you’re you uh but
37:14
you are remarkable virgil is very very
37:16
well known
37:17
and the fact that you can make it work
37:20
um
37:21
does not mean that you know like the
37:22
bottom whatever 90
37:24
some odd percent of folks could make it
37:26
work in the same way that’s true
37:28
but but take take this into account i
37:30
was when i was a completely anonymous
37:32
citizen with 200 twitter followers i
37:34
started a podcast
37:36
and over the course of two years we got
37:38
to about
37:39
i don’t know 8 000 people listening to
37:42
the podcast on average every week
37:44
every two weeks actually and and that
37:46
was that’s that puts you in like the top
37:48
echelon of podcast the vast majority
37:50
of podcasts barely get anyone listening
37:52
to them ever
37:53
um and we have a lot of people listening
37:55
to this are like
37:57
you know like i mean that that sorry
37:59
that resembles reality it’s true
38:01
continue i mean it’s hard to break
38:03
throughs but we we managed to to break
38:05
through
38:06
to go viral a couple of times and we
38:09
never we never monetized the podcast but
38:11
i think that we
38:12
could have and we could have grown it we
38:14
ended up stopping it because i left and
38:15
went to the intercept
38:16
but the thing i will say about the
38:17
internet is that it has a democratizing
38:19
effect
38:20
i my political career to the extent that
38:22
i have one
38:23
came fully out of engaging with people
38:25
and having arguments and discussions
38:27
on the internet inviting people to
38:29
continue those conversations on the
38:30
podcast
38:31
writing articles that concretized my
38:33
views and were able to be disseminated
38:35
far and wide and went
38:36
viral on their own kind of merit not
38:39
because i was a
38:40
big name not because i was associated
38:41
with any institution my most viral
38:43
articles continue to come out of current
38:44
affairs magazine
38:45
i’ve never been published in the new
38:47
york times you know and so
38:49
i want to say yes it’s hard but it’s not
38:51
as hard as it would be if we didn’t have
38:52
the freedom of these
38:53
internet platforms to get around a lot
38:56
of the gatekeeping that has
38:57
traditionally been done
38:58
in this sector again this is why so many
39:01
people
39:02
uh want to be you
39:05
really give me your husband awesome
39:08
um i want to hear more horror stories in
39:11
terms of
39:12
corporate media mistreatment of the
39:14
bernie’s campaign
39:18
you’re gonna get me in trouble look you
39:20
know it
39:22
it it was hard it was hard largely
39:25
because
39:25
you know i know that everybody who works
39:27
for every campaign
39:28
well i think that a lot of people who
39:30
work for a lot of campaigns really
39:32
believe they’re in it for the right
39:32
reasons and
39:33
because their candidate is the one that
39:35
can truly help america and so i don’t
39:37
mean to
39:38
sound like pollyanna about this now i
39:40
just want to interject for a moment brie
39:42
i cannot tell you how many times i did
39:44
an event
39:45
where there were uh tons of journalists
39:48
present
39:49
where i did what i thought was a good
39:52
job
39:53
and got zero mentioned
39:58
i know over and over again i i will tell
40:00
you that i told you this on our podcast
40:02
on bad faith podcast right i remember
40:04
being at the intercept and because i’m
40:06
so online i remember looking at youtube
40:08
videos i would see
40:10
i would be watching burning youtube
40:11
videos and see people from the yang gang
40:13
commenting in them
40:14
right like everywhere i looked on the
40:15
internet i saw yan gang yang and i was
40:17
like
40:18
this feels like an organic phenomenon
40:19
this feels like something
40:21
real and that’s not going away in the
40:22
same way that i saw in a lot of youtube
40:24
comments
40:25
and twitter comments people who who were
40:27
from california who were from kamala
40:28
harris district
40:29
who were not big fans of her and i said
40:31
well this doesn’t bode well for her
40:32
campaign i suspect that this is not
40:34
going to go well
40:34
it was an early indication of the fire
40:37
that you were able to
40:38
you ignite organically despite having no
40:41
participation
40:42
from the media and i remember getting a
40:44
request from your team
40:46
to see if the intercept had any interest
40:49
in profiling or interviewing you
40:50
and you know taking it to my editor and
40:54
like asking what he thought and
40:55
there was a kind of well this isn’t
40:56
really going to go anywhere attitude and
40:58
and i don’t say that to like throw any
41:00
under the anybody under the bus a lot of
41:01
people don’t go anywhere and
41:02
i was i was going off of like youtube
41:04
comments and i could have very easily
41:05
been wrong
41:07
but i can perceive that there’s a
41:09
certain kind of doom or pessimism
41:11
about new people and new ideas among the
41:14
left
41:15
that can sometimes hurt candidates that
41:18
could be really successful aoc barely
41:20
got any attention until she had that
41:21
viral um ad
41:23
in like spring of 2018 right so in your
41:26
case i think there are a lot of factors
41:28
i think that there’s a hostility to new
41:30
people period
41:31
i think if i can say this there’s a
41:34
certain amount of
41:35
you know like racist bias
41:39
frankly i i think that you mean the
41:41
asian thing
41:43
yeah i mean like they were like taking
41:44
inches off of your height and articles
41:46
they were like shrinking you down
41:48
a little bit odd the old the the old
41:50
incredible freaking candidate
41:52
was like huh i did it it was ridiculous
41:55
look
41:56
we haven’t had a you know a large number
41:59
of examples of of american civilization
42:01
descent
42:02
like taking politics by storm that’s not
42:04
a reason for you to ignore it’s a reason
42:06
for you to celebrate first
42:08
the way that you do when a lot of other
42:10
firsts happen in this country and it was
42:11
really remarkable to me
42:13
you know pete buda judge being the first
42:15
openly gay candidate to run
42:17
is a big deal but why wasn’t your first
42:20
status heralded more
42:21
we heard a lot about kamala harris’s
42:23
first status
42:25
you know she’s our first you know asian
42:27
american vp
42:28
or will be but you would have been our
42:30
first asian american president and
42:32
you can’t pretend to care about these
42:35
identity things which are important
42:36
which i think
42:37
matter on a certain level but care
42:40
selectively because you’re obviously
42:41
trying to boost
42:42
certain people’s interests versus
42:43
another and that’s why i think there’s
42:44
so much cynicism
42:45
about identity politics and that’s
42:47
ultimately destructive to a lot of
42:49
broader movements
42:50
um but yeah like i i i thought you
42:54
instantly were exciting largely because
42:55
you were bringing a new idea to the
42:57
table
42:58
new ideas to the table people you know
43:00
we all know that bernie sanders
43:02
you know isn’t popular because he was
43:04
some like rhetorical dynamo
43:06
and he was like wowing everybody with
43:09
these obama-like speeches no
43:11
people were impressed with bernie
43:13
sanders because he stood on a stage
43:15
and said hey health care is a human
43:18
right
43:18
i don’t think that you should die just
43:20
because you can’t afford your
43:23
vision of values principles and goals
43:26
yes very very compelling and it’s
43:28
unadulterated
43:30
until it’s not poll tested you can tell
43:31
he actually believes
43:35
and you and you have some of that too
43:36
andrew like people
43:38
have a lot of resp respect for folks who
43:40
are willing to stand behind an idea
43:42
especially one that’s not test driven or
43:45
pull
43:46
you know pole vetted or whatever and
43:48
just sell it
43:49
and there’s not enough of innovation
43:51
there’s not enough of
43:52
pitching that’s done in the democratic
43:54
party there’s too much pull testing and
43:55
saying well let’s like fit ourselves in
43:57
the image of whatever this print sheet
43:58
of you know
43:59
printed out sheet of paper tells us to
44:00
be instead of having confidence in faith
44:02
in the american people to be able to
44:04
internalize
44:05
digest and adopt a new idea i’m going to
44:08
ask this just because i’m personally
44:10
curious
44:10
do you remember any uh conversations
44:14
on the campaign about universal basic
44:17
income and bernie
44:18
because i was waiting for him
44:21
to uh say something positive about
44:24
universal basic income really the
44:25
the whole time honestly do you remember
44:29
any of those conversations i was curious
44:30
i don’t and i asked but i also wouldn’t
44:32
have really been privy to them
44:34
in my role i will say that in the
44:36
discourse in the lefty discourse i’ve
44:38
noticed there’s
44:38
um you know there’s there’s the jobs
44:42
guarantee camp and the ubi camp and
44:43
there’s some like tension between them
44:45
and there’s a lot of people who are like
44:46
i don’t really care either or both good
44:48
ideas and i think
44:50
that what it felt like to me was that
44:52
bernie
44:53
with the jobs guarantee that was a part
44:54
of the green new deal
44:56
program had just decided maybe maybe for
44:58
messaging clarity reasons like this is
45:00
what we’re going to do it’s a green new
45:01
deal and jobs program the green new deal
45:02
and jobs program that’s what we’re going
45:04
to do
45:04
um but certainly now in the context of
45:08
covet
45:09
when you know bernie’s been talking
45:11
about twelve hundred dollars a lot of
45:12
other people
45:13
went two thousand bill right and has
45:16
been since
45:16
the beginning right meanwhile and so has
45:19
kamala harris by the way
45:20
before she joined up with joe biden she
45:21
was championing two thousand dollars a
45:23
month relief
45:24
but now that she’s a part of this ticket
45:25
has been silent on it and joe biden has
45:27
also been silent on
45:29
wildly silent and media has not pressed
45:31
him on this on whether or not he
45:33
supports cash relief so
45:35
i i think that in a lot of ways you won
45:37
the messaging battle
45:38
even if it took this horrible tragedy um
45:41
to get us there
45:42
i mean i wish that we weren’t in these
45:43
circumstances uh that
45:45
accelerated enthusiasm for universal
45:48
basic income it’s interesting hearing
45:51
your parallel
45:53
set of experiences with the media
45:56
where it blew my mind many many times
45:59
brie because like i’d be there like you
46:01
would have a conversation with a
46:02
journalist and then you’d be like oh
46:03
that was nice and then
46:05
um you know and then it’d be like you’d
46:06
do something and it’s like it didn’t
46:07
happen
46:08
[Laughter]
46:10
and in my case too i’ll share this that
46:12
when i did get press coverage it was for
46:14
things that had nothing to do with um
46:16
what i was campaigning on most of the
46:18
time
46:18
it was for something very personality
46:20
driven uh like
46:22
like when i danced a cupid shuffle like
46:24
and then i showed up on the sunday news
46:25
programs that
46:26
weekend it was like me doing the cupid
46:28
shuffle as like uh
46:30
you know andrew yag like having a good
46:32
time on the trail sort of thing and i’m
46:33
like
46:34
huh yeah anyway
46:38
it’s hard it it reminds me of this
46:40
conversation that’s going on right now
46:41
all right about whether or not
46:43
the squad should use the fact that there
46:45
is a really narrow margin for democrats
46:47
in the house
46:48
to hold up nancy pelosi’s floor vote
46:50
right if a very small number of
46:51
progressives could say
46:52
yes force the vote let’s talk about
46:54
foreign um so they could make
46:56
make it so that nancy pelosi can’t be
46:58
speaker of the house unless she concedes
47:00
to certain demands and what the main
47:01
demand that’s being pushed right now is
47:02
that she
47:03
have a floor vote on medicare for all
47:05
and the idea being not because
47:07
there’s a high likelihood that they that
47:08
we would win um that the house would
47:11
pass medicare for all
47:12
um they’re only 118 co-sponsors in the
47:14
house now democrats have a majority and
47:16
they if
47:17
every democrat in the house would for
47:18
medicare for all we could pass medicare
47:20
for all and i think we should reflect
47:21
on what it means that all the house
47:23
democrats wouldn’t pass medicare for all
47:25
in the middle of a global pandemic
47:27
that’s a real i think indictment of
47:29
our politics right now but you know
47:33
there’s this a lot of people are pushing
47:34
back against the idea saying well you’re
47:35
not going to win anyway so what’s the
47:37
point and it’s all performative
47:38
well for a lot of us especially on the
47:40
left if you don’t do something that can
47:42
grab attention if you don’t do something
47:44
performant if you don’t do the cupid
47:45
shuffle if you don’t
47:46
figure out a way to marry the
47:49
performative and the substantive to say
47:51
force the vote
47:52
and let’s hold hold up nancy pelosi
47:54
speakership let’s let’s
47:55
threaten nancy pelosi who uh you know
47:57
obviously politically
47:58
um because she is one of the least liked
48:02
her favorabilities are worse than trump
48:03
three quarters of americans think she
48:04
should
48:05
should sit down let’s make step down
48:06
let’s make her the center of the story
48:08
and also wet it with some substantive
48:10
policy goals let’s get richard neal out
48:12
of the ways and means committee because
48:13
he’s going to block medicare for all
48:15
let’s get rid of pay go because that
48:16
stands in the way of us being able to
48:18
get all kinds of big ticket items that
48:20
pego requires you to fund them as you go
48:22
along and it makes it very difficult
48:24
um do we kind of put those things
48:25
together because the average american
48:27
doesn’t want to hear a bunch of wonkery
48:29
about paygo
48:29
but they might be interested in nancy
48:31
pelosi right
48:33
and and vice versa and you gotta learn
48:35
how to do a stunt how to figure out how
48:37
to
48:37
exploit the system which is yes very
48:40
biased against the interest of the left
48:42
biased against the interest of of
48:45
working people
48:47
uh i like the idea of forcing the vote i
48:49
mean you know like you should be able to
48:51
vote on a policy that a lot of people
48:52
support and just
48:53
and if you if you’re not for it then you
48:56
don’t vote for it and then we know or
48:57
you know i mean
48:58
you know it’s like it shouldn’t be that
49:00
controversial in my mind um
49:04
well one thing i want to return to
49:06
because it speaks to this problem you’re
49:08
describing right now and i think this is
49:09
one of the core things
49:10
so you said earlier that a bunch of
49:12
folks trust
49:14
liberal media um to report things with
49:17
good intentions and maybe they make
49:18
mistake every once in a while but
49:19
there’s nothing sinister
49:20
afoot uh now
49:24
the trust in media and the trusted
49:26
institutions
49:27
actually changes dramatically
49:30
based upon your political alignment so
49:34
society-wide right now trusted media is
49:36
approximately 42 percent if you say hey
49:39
do you like trust national media to like
49:40
report the news like 42
49:42
not great that’s not very not great it’s
49:44
better than congress though
49:45
yeah congress is like 15 or something
49:47
like that right so
49:49
re-election rate of 94 though so that
49:51
that’s a real problem
49:54
exactly hashtag right all that we could
49:57
get into
49:58
for sure so 42 of people trust the media
50:01
but it actually varies wildly
50:03
uh depending upon your politics uh it
50:05
turns out republicans do not trust the
50:07
media
50:08
at all more or less so you look at them
50:09
it’s down to something like 24
50:12
you look at independence it’s around the
50:15
42
50:15
whatever the national average is then
50:17
you look at democrats it’s in the 60s
50:19
it’s maybe like 62 percent
50:20
so what so what’s happening is you have
50:24
uh democrats who are among the last
50:26
people that believe
50:28
that uh the media is getting it right
50:30
and that
50:31
the liberal media or as you’d call the
50:33
corporate news sources are getting it
50:34
right
50:35
and so there’s like this conversation
50:37
that’s being had
50:38
um that that folks uh
50:41
on really on on either side are feeling
50:44
someone excluded from like in in your
50:46
case the progressives like hey
50:47
is this really what’s going on like my
50:50
guy just knocked it out of the park
50:51
the naacp like you might want to report
50:53
on that you know
50:55
like a lot of people like the idea of
50:56
giving everyone healthcare might want to
50:58
get behind that not treat everyone as
50:59
loony
51:00
who’s for it uh and and then there are
51:02
folks on the
51:03
the right who have a different
51:05
perspective um
51:07
no i’m you know obviously more aligned
51:08
with with democrats
51:10
um but this institution non-institution
51:13
thing
51:14
is actually to me one of the most
51:15
powerful dynamics and the
51:17
media and the folks who trust the media
51:19
and trust that our institutions are
51:20
functioning
51:21
comprise the majority of the democratic
51:23
party uh
51:24
and and then there is this subset that i
51:26
think you are a part of that’s starting
51:28
to question a lot of that and they’re
51:30
like independent news media sources
51:32
there are some independent voices um but
51:36
it’s difficult because there are a lot
51:38
of folks
51:39
who really do not want to question the
51:42
institutional
51:43
powers that be and to me the most
51:45
powerful example of that
51:46
which really blew my mind was before the
51:49
election
51:50
when uh they couldn’t come to terms in a
51:53
relief bill
51:54
and uh steve mnuchin
51:57
i had like a 1.8 trillion dollar
52:01
offer that you you referenced earlier
52:03
and then
52:04
uh nancy did not want that deal for a
52:07
couple of reasons
52:08
and then i was looking around being like
52:10
why are people suggesting
52:12
should probably take this deal like
52:13
people are hurting we can’t wait through
52:15
the winter
52:16
like let’s just do this thing um and i
52:19
said
52:19
that and there were so few people
52:22
that were on board with my saying that
52:24
yeah i was like
52:26
yeah it was me and ro thank you rokhana
52:28
for not leaving me
52:30
all alone on this one um but there were
52:32
so many people that attacked me
52:34
oh yeah uh oh yeah
52:40
yeah you told me i was like look up like
52:42
i i have my
52:44
opinion on this negotiating stance like
52:47
i think you should probably jump on this
52:49
thing
52:49
uh you know and and you can disagree
52:51
with me you can say hey andrew
52:53
i think you’re wrong um without it being
52:56
some kind of
52:58
like you know like uh attack and so
53:00
there was this thing
53:02
there’s this thing that happened at
53:03
least to me and i think bernie for sure
53:06
but uh there was like this institutional
53:09
resistance
53:10
to so to someone uh questioning
53:14
nancy pelosi’s uh process or judgment
53:18
um and it shocked me that there weren’t
53:20
more people that were questioning it
53:22
at that point you know my friend
53:25
at every stage this is this is what
53:27
we’re faced with look
53:29
i i expect that you probably got some
53:31
people accusing you of
53:33
secretly trying to support trump or why
53:36
do you hate the democratic party so much
53:38
you might as well go be a republican i
53:39
mean that’s
53:40
that’s the kind of response that i get
53:41
if i say anything mildly critical of a
53:43
choice made by a democrat
53:45
and in my case i was actually accused of
53:47
sexism that that was oh
53:49
there you go there’s that’s the talk
53:50
there’s another one that happens look
53:52
obviously sexism is real and true in the
53:54
world but
53:55
it can’t be this is again the cynicism
53:57
around identity politics
53:58
identity matters people have been
54:01
marginalized on the basis of their
54:02
identity
54:03
both socially and desure like legally
54:05
our government until
54:07
50 years ago was doing this identity
54:09
matters as a political metric
54:11
however identity cannot be cynically
54:14
used
54:15
by the party apparatus in order to
54:17
deflect substantive criticism
54:18
and the way that’s being done repeatedly
54:20
and that cynicism around identity
54:22
is driving people to the right is
54:24
driving people into the arms of right
54:25
wingers that we
54:26
in in the you know neo-fascist populist
54:30
uprising that created trump in a way
54:32
that we don’t want to happen we need to
54:33
be honest about what’s going on and be
54:35
willing
54:36
to accept criticism so i think that you
54:38
were right about that i think that a lot
54:39
of people now that we see the deal that
54:41
we got
54:42
are understanding that a choice was made
54:44
explicitly
54:45
because nancy pelosi didn’t want to give
54:48
donald trump
54:48
points anything that he could campaign
54:50
over before the election now
54:53
that raises a lot of other questions for
54:54
me why was the election so close
54:56
if donald trump was so vile right why
54:59
was the election so close that the idea
55:01
of letting him
55:01
put out a stimulus check with his name
55:03
on it could have thrown
55:04
maybe we don’t even know that that’s
55:06
true but maybe could have advantaged him
55:08
meaningfully in the election
55:09
why wasn’t the democratic party long
55:12
before we got that close to the price to
55:14
the general election
55:15
running explicitly on cash payments to
55:18
americans why wasn’t that
55:20
arms favored by 88 of voters i don’t
55:23
know what the other 12
55:24
are thinking uh 88 is pretty high
55:28
yes by the way you know what else 88 of
55:30
voters support
55:31
medicare for all 88 of voters support no
55:34
sorry 88
55:35
of democrats support medicare for all 72
55:37
percent of voters according to a fox
55:39
news exit poll a fox news exit poll
55:42
should that 72 percent of americans
55:44
overall support medicare for all
55:45
and about 50 of republicans do so why is
55:48
it that
55:49
joe biden is in in the context of the
55:51
general election saying
55:52
i would veto medicare for all even if it
55:54
passed the house in the senate why is
55:56
why aren’t we asking the questions about
55:57
why the democrats are
55:59
running on these enormously popular
56:01
beneficial policies
56:02
that can make the election not so close
56:04
that we had to deny
56:06
americans much needed economic support
56:09
at a national low point in terms of both
56:12
the economy and our national health
56:15
the the lack of stimulus between
56:18
april and december was
56:22
it’s morally yeah like morally criminal
56:26
you know like looking at that
56:29
objectively
56:30
be like and if you withheld for
56:32
political reasons
56:33
um that’s awful and
56:36
you know you can’t know whether that was
56:38
the motivation but certainly
56:40
it felt a whole lot like that they said
56:43
at one point
56:44
they it was made explicit at one point
56:47
that you know this could this could help
56:48
trump like that was an explicit message
56:50
i don’t remember at this point
56:51
don’t quote me that it came out of
56:53
pelosi’s mouth or somebody else in
56:54
democratic party leadership
56:55
but that wasn’t a creation of the media
56:57
that wasn’t just conjecture that that
56:59
was the message
57:00
and democrats you know a lot of
57:02
democrats who trust the party bought
57:04
into that and said
57:05
well yes the most important thing is
57:06
defeating donald trump therefore
57:08
even if it hurts millions of americans
57:11
were going to keep the stimulus in the
57:12
bag
57:13
and you know that that’s that’s why i’m
57:16
saying again like it should never have
57:17
been that close whether or not it helps
57:19
donald trump was only an issue because
57:21
i believe the the party leadership in
57:24
in the the chosen candidate didn’t do
57:28
enough to distinguish themselves for
57:29
trump and fight affirmatively
57:31
for what they were going to do for
57:32
america instead it was i’m not trump
57:34
let’s defeat trump’s sort of campaign
57:36
and that just doesn’t galvanize people
57:38
the way that cash relief
57:40
medicare for all canceling student debt
57:42
legalizing marijuana
57:44
ubi mobilizes people
57:47
so bree uh now that and i remember
57:50
the the spring very well and i know it
57:54
was deeply painful for everyone on the
57:55
bernie campaign where it felt like it
57:57
was this
57:58
close like right there post nevada and
58:00
then
58:01
um jim climber endorses joe in south
58:03
carolina and then the entire tide turns
58:05
and all the candidates
58:06
um
58:10
had a particular direction
58:14
so it’s been seven eight months since
58:16
then you’ve now pivoted to become
58:18
an independent voice a journalist you’re
58:22
producing things that you believe in
58:24
what do you see
58:25
as like the next number of steps uh for
58:29
progressives for trying to make some of
58:32
these
58:32
changes happen politically for yourself
58:34
individually
58:36
you know i mean you’ve had like a
58:37
fascinating career already and you’re
58:39
still
58:39
just getting started um but like i i
58:42
look up and
58:43
you know there are times when i’m very
58:44
optimistic um there are times when i
58:46
think that the mechanics of our system
58:48
are just desperately broken uh and that
58:51
uh and when you start digging into some
58:54
of these numbers like
58:55
you know an 18 approval rating for
58:57
congress and a 94
58:58
reelection rate you’re like whoa like
59:00
how does that work and then you you
59:02
start
59:03
looking at mechanical fixes um one
59:05
mechanical fix i’ve been pushing very
59:06
hard is ranked choice voting
59:08
and open primaries which i think would
59:10
uh make our politics much more dynamic
59:12
and responsive
59:13
and genuine and then you can you
59:15
couldn’t bully everyone being like
59:17
you’re going to waste your vote
59:18
you’re going to like elect the evil or
59:19
whatever it’s like well if you’re ranked
59:20
as voting we don’t need to worry about
59:21
it anymore so
59:22
let’s pursue true democratic reforms
59:26
yeah i i’m a huge fan a huge advocate of
59:28
ranked choice voting
59:29
um the number one bully pull put to your
59:32
point the democratic party has is
59:34
if you don’t vote for the lesser of two
59:35
evils you’re going to make the evil win
59:37
and we have been operating on that logic
59:39
since you know realignment and the
59:41
democratic
59:42
party became what it is today um in the
59:45
republican party
59:46
became the you know southern strategy
59:48
party of
59:49
of uh white racism that you know it
59:51
emerged as
59:52
and we’ve been trying to struggle out of
59:55
that since the 1960s
59:56
since the 1950s and uh
60:00
i raised this question you know at this
60:03
point kind of infamously
60:04
on our podcast in an episode with noam
60:06
chomsky where i i simply asked look
60:08
let’s assume that donald trump presents
60:10
a unique evil and we all have to vote
60:12
him out this time
60:13
what do we do between now and 2024 to
60:16
make sure we’re not in the same
60:17
situation how do we get out of this
60:19
lesser of two legalism structure
60:21
and if we are willing to pledge our
60:22
votes the democratic party no matter
60:24
what under any circumstances
60:26
i you know i thought michael bloomberg
60:28
um was a closer call in terms of who was
60:30
worse with respect to donald trump
60:32
because he’s a lot more capable
60:33
and has actually enacted had actually
60:35
enacted a much more extreme
60:37
racial pogrom in new york city than
60:39
donald trump managed although he
60:41
certainly tried
60:42
um because michael bloomberg is an
60:43
incompetent unlike donald trump
60:45
um and people were you know willing to
60:48
vote for him
60:48
you know there were donnie joyce people
60:50
were saying they wouldn’t vote for
60:51
bernie but they would vote for for
60:52
bloomberg if he was the eventual nominee
60:55
so what authority do we have what what
60:57
line in the stand
60:58
can we is there if if the democrat if
61:01
democrats are never willing to say
61:02
enough is enough this is not the kind of
61:04
candidate we want representing us this
61:05
is not the kind of party we are
61:07
is there any policy that they won’t
61:08
throw under the bus is there any kind of
61:10
candidate that we won’t accept
61:11
and if the answer is no we’re go we
61:13
should expect that the party moves more
61:15
and more and more to the right over the
61:16
course of history
61:17
the way it’s been doing so what’s going
61:19
to stop that movement i think that
61:20
ranked choice voting is one of those
61:22
things
61:23
i think greater union participation in
61:25
figuring out how to organize
61:26
massive blocks of voters that can
61:29
meaningfully incredibly threaten
61:31
democrats to say we are going to
61:32
withhold our vote we are not going to
61:34
mobilize our population
61:35
unless you adhere to some basic
61:37
standards like the fact that 88
61:40
of democrats want medicare for all but
61:42
barely half of the house of
61:44
representatives
61:45
will co-sponsor the bill
61:48
what that the idea the idea people
61:51
people
61:52
are arguing against forced to vote who
61:53
are like well it wouldn’t pass anyway
61:54
that’s not an indictment of the idea of
61:56
forced to vote that’s a
61:57
colossal indictment of elected
62:00
representatives
62:01
democratic representatives in the house
62:03
we are in the middle of a global
62:04
pandemic where
62:05
15 million people have just lost their
62:07
employer-based healthcare
62:09
all of the people who are arguing if you
62:10
like your healthcare you can keep it
62:12
during the primary election should be
62:15
put on the mat
62:16
by a journalist every single day asking
62:17
have you revised your
62:19
position do you want to apologize for
62:21
misleading the public and spreading
62:22
right-wing talking points because none
62:23
of that was true and now you have to
62:25
answer to
62:25
15 million americans 15 million
62:29
who in the middle of a global health
62:30
crisis have no recourse
62:32
with respect to paying for their health
62:33
care that’s unconscionable
62:35
and yet we don’t have a media apparatus
62:37
who’s willing to do that
62:38
and for people like you and those in the
62:41
left who are willing to stand up and
62:42
articulate
62:43
some you know break from consensus
62:47
are ridiculed called traitors to the
62:49
party
62:50
accused of sexism or some other kind of
62:52
identity based bias
62:54
and there’s no real reckoning at any
62:56
point so i do think that yes
62:58
ranked choice voting needs to be pushed
62:59
democrats will never do it because
63:01
that’s the source
63:01
one of the main sources of their power
63:03
but we have to agitate for it
63:05
um we need to start going to town halls
63:08
take a lesson out of the tea parties
63:09
playbook which is was a lesson out of
63:11
salalinsky’s playbook on the left
63:13
and make life uncomfortable for our
63:15
elected representatives until they
63:17
start actually representing us and that
63:19
goes for some of the people who have
63:21
been progressive champions as well it’s
63:22
not about throwing them out
63:24
or saying they’re terrible people or
63:26
questioning their motives
63:27
but it’s about understanding that there
63:28
is a such thing as institutional creep
63:30
um when you are in office your motives
63:33
start to change
63:34
and you have an incentive in maintaining
63:36
your status and your position
63:37
and you have all these incentives to
63:39
raise money and and give money to the
63:41
parties that you can get
63:42
hierarchy and status within your
63:45
committee positions and all these kinds
63:46
of things which are important
63:47
but shouldn’t come at the expense of the
63:49
people that you were elected to
63:50
represent
63:51
we need to give money to independent
63:53
candidates so that they can rely on the
63:54
people and be beholden to the people
63:56
instead of being beholden to
63:58
corporate interests we need to push for
63:59
campaign finance reform so they don’t
64:01
have the option
64:02
to be dependent on corporate interests
64:04
and we all just have to stay a lot more
64:06
engaged and have
64:08
confidence have faith keep the faith
64:11
that if we do these things and we stand
64:13
together and we recognize that it’s not
64:14
left right that it is top down
64:16
and the 99 stands together it is
64:19
possible for us to have a better world
64:21
it is possible and we should not let
64:23
pessimism cow
64:26
oh you’re like the antidote to cynicism
64:28
i love it anyone
64:30
anyone who needs needs a reminder
64:33
of the the fact that we can do great
64:36
things
64:36
uh brie’s got a podcast every every week
64:39
with
64:40
virgil who’s more of a virgo’s more of a
64:42
downer than bree so you guys know
64:43
there’s a little bit of a
64:44
yin-yang good bad cop situation
64:48
oh yeah there you are you’re a very good
64:49
team um so for you personally
64:53
i’m sure there was like a sense of
64:55
depletion
64:56
after the campaign and then you’ve just
64:58
gotten kind of your
65:00
legs underneath you in terms of this
65:03
new podcast and your new independent
65:05
media project
65:07
would the plan be to just keep on uh
65:10
building your um voice and work until
65:14
like the
65:14
the next candidate catches fire and
65:17
manages to get your attention
65:19
yeah i mean certainly i’m interested to
65:21
see what happens electorally but i’m
65:22
also
65:23
really interested to start to explore
65:25
non-electoral activism you know
65:27
there’s been a little bit of a circular
65:29
firing squad on the left this past week
65:31
or two about force the vote
65:32
and to try to break out of that i’m
65:35
reaching out to
65:36
union leaders and organizers to try to
65:37
come on and give us a more
65:40
um concrete sense of how change happens
65:42
you know
65:43
a lot of left pundits like to say well
65:45
your idea doesn’t work because it really
65:47
requires organizing it requires
65:48
grassroots support i mean like that’s
65:50
great but don’t we play a role in
65:51
helping to germinate that
65:52
can’t we do that why not right like i’m
65:54
not doing anything else i’m just a
65:55
podcaster let me let me call up the head
65:57
of my local dsa
65:58
let me write to my representative and
66:00
see if she
66:02
she can get on the record on for us to
66:03
vote you know let let me
66:05
reach out to the medicare for all
66:07
advocates let me reach out to black
66:08
lives matter advocates
66:10
let’s see what does it actually take to
66:11
get 3 000 people sitting in front of the
66:14
capitol what does it take to organize
66:16
a million person march or the women’s
66:18
march let me let me ask um
66:20
you know this woman not doing anything
66:22
this woman can do anything she doesn’t
66:23
date
66:23
it’s beautiful well i haven’t done it
66:25
yet one thing i want
66:27
oh yo you you you will do um all of
66:30
those things are very doable
66:32
one thing i want to just insert into
66:34
this forced to vote conversation
66:35
and this is something that a member of
66:37
congress informed me of that i was like
66:38
wow that’s freaking
66:40
terrible um is it’s very hard to get any
66:42
vote going
66:43
on the floor because of something called
66:45
the denny hastert rule
66:46
where you need the majority of the
66:48
majority party to be on board
66:50
to even introduce anything so i want you
66:52
all to
66:53
imagine being first let’s say a minority
66:55
legislator so let’s say you’re
66:57
a democrat the senator or republican in
66:59
the house you’re like well i can’t force
67:00
a vote on a single thing
67:01
maybe because we’re not we’re not a
67:04
majority of the majority
67:06
and then i want you to imagine being a
67:07
minority of the majority party where you
67:09
also can’t
67:10
get a vote on anything uh because you
67:13
know like you you don’t have
67:14
i suppose it would be um you know like a
67:17
hundred and
67:18
uh 30 or 140 colleagues on board or
67:21
whatever the number is
67:22
um so that rule just strikes me is so
67:26
terrible like it just seems like such a
67:28
dysfunctional body where it’s literally
67:30
like if you have the majority of the
67:31
majority then you can
67:32
actually advance things and if you don’t
67:34
you can’t and then
67:35
you can just chill out like like yeah
67:39
so it is an action which is why this
67:41
opportunity
67:42
right because the speaker can bring a
67:43
floor vote the speaker regardless of
67:45
the numbers you’ve got can bring us four
67:47
votes well the speaker is the one that
67:49
enacted this rule that’s not even a rule
67:51
it’s like you know it’s like the speaker
67:53
saying well i’m not going to do it
67:54
unless the majority majority so they
67:55
clearly can do what they want yeah and
67:57
it’s an aggregating party for
67:58
herself a power rather for herself all
68:00
of it so much of what we see in politics
68:02
is that people get
68:03
a little bit of power and they hoard it
68:06
you know even you know we talked a lot
68:07
about
68:08
george bush’s overreach and expansion of
68:10
executive power
68:11
and then barack obama came into office
68:13
and instead of dismantling it once you
68:14
get there like well i’m the good guy
68:16
so it’s good if i have power so let me
68:18
keep let me keep what was aggregated for
68:20
me in the last administration and then
68:21
get a little bit more
68:22
and so what we get is increasingly
68:25
individuals
68:26
who are able to lord their preferences
68:29
in a very anti-democratic way over the
68:32
rest of us
68:33
which i’m going to suggest is
68:34
particularly problematic when you’re
68:35
looking at
68:37
legislative body of hundreds of people
68:40
like that
68:40
that to me is like more problematic even
68:44
i mean
68:44
the executive abuses have their own uh
68:46
you know like separate category of
68:49
problem but i feel like in a legislative
68:51
body like hoarding it at that level just
68:53
seems particularly
68:55
um egregious at least to me
68:58
yeah i mean they’re supposed they’re
68:59
literally it’s it’s especially the house
69:01
that kind of representative body the
69:04
most representative body that we
69:06
have basically being frozen
69:09
in an action you know in this idea that
69:10
you know to your point about republicans
69:12
not being able to bring something to a
69:13
floor vote too
69:14
look what’s happening right now who
69:16
who’s fighting for cash relief
69:18
it’s a it’s a independent and a
69:20
republican
69:22
you know um you know who are who are
69:25
leading the chart bernie’s
69:26
you know so it was in the senate it was
69:28
bernie sanders
69:29
and josh hawley exactly and then there
69:31
were some folks working it
69:32
behind the scenes including cory booker
69:35
and then i know this because i’ve been
69:37
actually working this scene for
69:39
a while like i’ve been having
69:42
calls and sessions about cash relief and
69:44
then uh
69:45
and then in the house i’m happy to say
69:47
that dozens of
69:49
um members on both sides of the aisle
69:52
uh got on board with with cash relief
69:54
and so there was like this four corners
69:56
negotiation around the stimulus bill
69:58
if you remember the bipartisan senate
70:00
bill that got proposed in the beginning
70:01
of december didn’t include cash relief
70:03
and we had like a freak out here i had a
70:05
freak out i was like how can there not
70:07
be cash relief in this thing
70:08
um but we’ve been trying to get folks
70:11
excited about cash
70:12
as um part of this bill for weeks
70:16
and so i’m just going to call out a few
70:17
people some of whom you know and love
70:19
but uh lisa blunt rochester and david
70:22
mckinley were the bipartisan sponsors of
70:23
a cash leap bill in the house
70:25
and then i’m happy to say that like
70:27
people from all over the political map
70:29
from
70:29
pramila jayapal to uh to tom reed to
70:32
others and one of the rules we had on
70:34
that bill
70:35
was that we want a republican for every
70:37
democrat um and we got it
70:39
like so it just like it grew it was like
70:41
noah’s ark
70:42
it was wild um but but but so you should
70:46
know that that was happening in the
70:47
house the house i think was more
70:49
um uh stridently for cash relief
70:52
in the senate it blew my mind that after
70:56
bernie and josh hawley came out and like
70:58
hey we should really have stimulus which
70:59
they were totally right
71:00
um and and i was working like senators
71:03
being like you want to get in on that
71:05
because they’re right and like you know
71:06
like everyone agrees with it
71:08
um and so it was odd that we couldn’t
71:10
get more senators on the record
71:12
um for cash relief uh there were three
71:15
that were
71:16
for it behind the scenes anyway sorry
71:18
just one month
71:20
that’s really useful and i think that
71:21
part of it is that they’re not as
71:23
senators aren’t as accountable you know
71:24
they have longer terms
71:26
um their races tend to be uh more
71:28
expensive
71:30
you know um i think they can
71:33
in a lot of ways be less less
71:35
accountable to their constituents plus
71:36
to the earlier point about
71:38
uh media bias i don’t know if you saw
71:40
the clip where bernie sanders
71:42
you know went on msnbc to talk about
71:45
um cash relief and he was pressed by i
71:48
believe it was stephanie rule
71:50
she said well i’m looking at a sheet of
71:53
paper here bernie she had a graphic all
71:54
ready to go that says you’ve only passed
71:56
whatever the handful of uh bills and
71:59
your entire
71:59
time in congress don’t you think you
72:01
should take a different approach
72:03
so she completely took the conversation
72:05
off of this relief bill and millions of
72:07
americans who desperately need it
72:09
to try to give some dig about how she
72:10
doesn’t think that bernie sanders has
72:12
done enough while he is in congress and
72:13
like that’s the kind of crap you get
72:15
and and people get away with it people
72:18
get away with it
72:19
i mean i certainly have an axe to grind
72:21
with msnbc i don’t know
72:24
i don’t i don’t know if you were
72:25
surprised of the entire
72:28
like uh dynamic over there i saw it
72:31
happening i saw you
72:32
you know all the little stuff not
72:35
cutting to you during
72:36
the debates you know like it was it was
72:39
apparent to me
72:40
you know it was apparent to me what was
72:42
happening to you what was happening to
72:42
marianne williamson
72:44
um you know before like a second there
72:48
like
72:48
build a block like i had my eyes open
72:52
um and i don’t think it behooves us even
72:54
if it were to like advantage my
72:55
candidate i don’t think it behooves us
72:57
in the long term for us to um
73:01
ignore those things because it hurt
73:02
every candidate at a certain point right
73:04
there was a point at which
73:05
um uh corey cory booker
73:08
and julian castro both raised concerns
73:10
about whether or not joe biden had the
73:12
stamina to be president
73:14
and in the spin room
73:17
they were kind of immediately shut down
73:20
the coverage of julian castro asking
73:22
that question during the debate of like
73:23
did you just
73:24
you know forget what you just said was
73:26
really
73:27
pilloried even though if you listen back
73:29
to the tape he was completely right you
73:30
cannot disagree with his tone or
73:31
something but he was accurate
73:32
in his assessment of what had just
73:34
happened on the stage and then
73:37
the the little the statement the mild
73:40
you know
73:40
cory booker is so polite he gave a
73:42
really soft mild you know like i’m just
73:44
concerned like it’s something that we
73:45
should consider
73:46
you never heard a peep out of them ever
73:48
again the back it was
73:50
it was like a hard shut down we’re not
73:51
gonna talk about joe biden’s
73:53
um you know stamina anything cognitive
73:56
and we’re just gonna
73:57
we’re gonna push for like this never
73:58
happened and then the idea that anyone
74:00
would question
74:01
whether joe biden’s you know little
74:03
peccadillos here and there
74:05
were a part of or an indication of
74:06
something bigger that was going on
74:08
it was it was fun as this is a left-wing
74:10
attack i’m like
74:11
you know cory booker is
74:14
it’s not exactly what i would call left
74:16
wing he’s like a lovely man
74:18
but he’s this is not exactly what i
74:20
would call a part of the left vanguard
74:22
you know and so this kind of stuff adds
74:25
up and it doesn’t help people not to
74:26
have
74:27
conversations that are gonna emerge in
74:29
the general because donald trump isn’t
74:31
playing by those rules
74:32
vetted in a primary when we can still do
74:34
something about it
74:35
this is something um that’s come out
74:38
recently about diane
74:39
fein feinstein yes yes um
74:43
no and um the average
74:46
age of a u.s senator is 62 and that’s
74:49
average
74:50
so you know and to me age is just a
74:54
number but they’re like some folks that
74:56
like are are um
75:00
feeling their age and others that are
75:02
less so and so you know if there’s some
75:04
kind of
75:05
way to verify what i mean i certainly
75:07
think trump’s been freaking
75:08
deteriorating before our eyes
75:10
last over the last number of years um so
75:14
this to me is i actually something that
75:16
the media
75:18
um should be considered like really much
75:20
more responsible for
75:22
um that we are not uh it it’s like
75:25
uh that that um we have
75:29
leaders who um would not
75:32
be considered for leadership positions
75:34
in other industries
75:37
based upon their um their age and then
75:40
in the public sector it’s like a taboo
75:43
subject to raise
75:44
um in various ways just age like you
75:47
know obviously i supported a very old
75:49
candidate
75:49
you know and you know as much as i felt
75:52
like it was biased and sometimes not
75:54
constructive
75:55
i’m not going to be mad at anyone for
75:56
having a conversation about you know
75:58
does bernie have the stamina after a
76:00
heart attack like that’s a legitimate
76:01
conversation to have
76:03
but the bias the unwillingness to have
76:06
that conversation about joe biden
76:08
you know the unwillingness to have a
76:09
conversation you know
76:11
in light of specific instances of him
76:14
misspeaking or getting facts wrong or
76:16
having
76:16
an emotional outburst at a reporter
76:19
listen
76:20
fat pushing people you know like this
76:22
this stuff is
76:23
fair game if it’s going to be fair game
76:24
about other candidates
76:26
and the idea that it could be spun into
76:28
a left-wing attack it’s just it’s
76:30
it boggles the mind yeah that should be
76:32
there should just be a standard
76:35
even stevens that’s all i ask yeah
76:38
um wow this is so much fun i can’t
76:40
believe
76:41
that time has flown by we should do this
76:43
every week
76:44
i’m going to urge you to replace virgil
76:47
with me
76:48
let’s let’s go to podcast
76:51
at that point i would i would have to
76:53
like answer for why
76:55
i only do podcasts with asian american
77:00
men
77:05
or something about it i didn’t know
77:06
pre-virgil there was another though
77:08
no like my first oh wait you saw you
77:10
told me yes
77:12
that’s right wow
77:15
no wonder you know this feels so
77:17
familiar
77:18
um but incredibly grateful to you
77:22
um really and learned a lot you are such
77:26
a positive voice of both reason and
77:30
progress
77:30
i appreciate the heck out of you if
77:32
there’s anything i can do to help let me
77:34
know
77:34
um and certainly let virgil know that if
77:37
he needs me to pinch hit for him anytime
77:40
show up unannounced i appreciate that
77:42
and i appreciate you two so much andrew
77:44
you’re a clarion voice
77:46
and i appreciate your willingness to
77:48
kind of go against the grain and i
77:49
really look forward to
77:51
whatever is up your sleeve next as well
77:53
thank you bri
77:54
so much fun have a great holiday season
77:56
you too stay safe
77:58
thank you for listening in i hope you
77:59
enjoyed this conversation if you did
78:02
please do subscribe to yang speaks and
78:04
click on notifications so we can let you
78:06
know
78:06
every time we have a new episode
78:18
you

Zaid Jilani explains what’s wrong with the NYT’s 1619 Project

Journalist Zaid Jilani weighs in on the controversy over the Pulitzer Prize winning 1619 Project that caused a fundamental disagreement over the trajectory of American history between scholars and the authors of The New York Times Magazine’s issue on slavery.

About Rising:
Rising is a weekday morning show with bipartisan hosts that breaks the mold of morning TV by taking viewers inside the halls of Washington power like never before. The show leans into the day’s political cycle with cutting edge analysis from DC insiders who can predict what is going to happen. It also sets the day’s political agenda by breaking exclusive news with a team of scoop-driven reporters and demanding answers during interviews with the country’s most important political newsmakers.

Charles Harder: Lawyer Suing Mary Trump

Harder is best known for representing Hulk Hogan (real name Terry Bollea) in the Bollea v. Gawker case.[6][7]

In 2007, Harder represented major videogame publisher Ubisoft in a one-week arbitration trial, defeating an $11 million claim by a German videogame producer.[4]

In 2009–2016, Harder represented numerous celebrities in cases over misappropriation of their names and likeness,[8] including Sandra Bullock,[9] George ClooneyBradley Cooper,[10] Jude Law,[11] Mandy Moore,[12] Liam Neeson,[10] Julia Roberts[9] and Reese Witherspoon.[13][14] Harder also won four different ICANN arbitrations for Sandra Bullock,[15] Cameron Diaz,[16] Kate Hudson[17] and Sigourney Weaver,[18] respectively.

In 2011, Harder won an $18 million verdict for Cecchi Gori Pictures, and defeated a multi-million dollar counterclaim, after a four-week trial in Los Angeles state court.[19][20]

In 2017–18, Harder represented Ivan Aguilera, the heir of Mexican pop icon Juan Gabriel, against Univision and Telemundo, in a $100 million defamation suit.[21]

In 2017, Harder threatened to sue the New York Times on behalf of Harvey Weinstein, the day after the Times published the first story about him allegedly engaging in harassment. The lawsuit was never filed and Harder withdrew from the representation the next week.[22]

In 2017, Harder represented First Lady Melania Trump in a defamation case against the Daily Mail, which resulted in a $2.9 million settlement payment to Trump, and a public retraction and apology by the Daily Mail to her.[23] In 2018, he also represented the President in legal demand letters sent to political consultant/media executive Steve Bannon and author Michael Wolff.[24] Harder also represented Jared Kushner in connection with a Vanity Fair article covering the 2017 Special Counsel investigation.[25] He represented the Trump campaign in a legal action taken against Omarosa Manigault Newman following the publication of her book, Unhinged.[26]

In 2018, Harder represented President Trump in a defamation lawsuit filed by Stormy Daniels (real name Stephanie Clifford). On October 15, 2018, the U.S. District Court granted an anti-SLAPP motion filed by Harder, dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice and awarding President Trump reimbursement of his attorneys fees against Stormy Daniels.[27] On December 11, 2018 the court ordered Stormy Daniels to pay President Trump 75% reimbursement of his attorneys fees or $292,052.33, plus a $1000 sanction on Stormy Daniels as well. “The court’s order,” Harder said, “along with the court’s prior order dismissing Stormy Daniels’ defamation case against the President, together constitute a total victory for the President, and a total defeat for Stormy Daniels in this case.” [28]

In 2019, Harder sent a letter to CNN on behalf of President Trump and his campaign claiming CNN was violating the federal Lanham Act by marketing itself as “fair and balanced” after multiple CNN employees reportedly admitted the company was strongly biased against the President.[29]

In 2019, Harder sued Oakley on behalf of US Olympic gold medalist Shaun White, for using his name and image beyond the term permitted by an earlier contract between them.[30]

Hillary Clinton Pressuring Media To “Correct” Tulsi Gabbard Stories

“In a curious turn of events, a number of major news organizations ran corrections Wednesday night over week-old reports that sparked a testy war of words between Hillary Clinton and Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

Last week, a number of media organizations, including the New York Times, CNN and Politico, ran reports saying Clinton told the podcast “Campaign HQ with David Plouffe” that Russians were “grooming” a female Democratic candidate — widely assumed to be Gabbard — for a third-party run to play a potential spoiler in the 2020 election.”

Hosts: Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian