September 13, 2025 • 29 mins
In this episode of The Middle, we look at the state of free speech and whether or not we are really free to speak our minds in the wake of political activist and commentator Charlie Kirk's assassination. Jeremy is joined by journalist Mike Pesca, host of The Gist podcast. #freespeech #speakyourmind #Trump #CharlieKirk #Left #Right #Democrat #Republican
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
This is a special edition of The Middle podcast. I'm
Jeremy Hobson. As we record this episode, the nation is
still processing the assassination of the activist Charlie Kirk, just
the latest in a number of assassinations or attempted assassinations
of people in this country, apparently because of their political beliefs.
There was the killing of the Democratic Speaker of the
(00:35):
Minnesota State House, Melissa Hortman, and her husband Mark in June,
the April arson attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's home.
There was the attack on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's
husband in twenty twenty two, the two assassination attempts on
President Trump, the shooting of Republican Congressman Steve Scalise at
a baseball game in twenty seventeen. Of course, former Democratic
(00:57):
Congressman Gaby Giffort's back in twenty eleven Arizona. And the
thing is the entire premise of the show The Middle
is to be able to talk, listen, and disagree in
a civil way, because our democracy only works when we
were able to communicate with our fellow citizens in good faith.
So we did an episode of Our Call in show
a few weeks ago where we asked if you feel
(01:19):
free to speak your mind in our current political and
social climate, and we had Cornell West, the political activist
and Tangle News editor at large Camille Foster on. It
was a great conversation, so much engagement from our listeners
and so much so, like more than one hundred voicemails
after the show, that we're going to continue that conversation
now with some more of your comments and the wisdom
(01:39):
of longtime journalist Mike Pesca, an old friend who hosts
the daily podcast The Gist. Mike, it's great to have
you here.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Oh, thanks for having me again.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
Well, and there are so many aspects of this topic,
but let's start with the one that is front and center.
What is happening in our country that people feel that
they have to turn to violence to silence those that
they disagree with what you think.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Definitely a lot of cross currents. Mental illness and the
access to guns are first and foremost, because even though
there have been assassinations in places without guns like the
UK and Japan, with guns, it intensifies and exacerbates it tenfold.
I would say, I think it's also important to note
(02:21):
that there have been other periods, not too far distant,
periods that have been much angrier and even more violent
than this. So like maybe we think of the sixties
and the assassinations of the Kennedys and MLK.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
But of course the seventies were worse. Right.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
You have an assassination attempt on George Wallace in seventy two,
and then the two attempt at assassinations on Ford and
when they don't work, we consign them to a different category.
But you know, if they had, we'd be talking about
the seventies is the most bloody decade, and then Harvey
Milk and George Mosconi and then Alard k Lowenstein who
was a member of Congress in eighty one Reagan. Things
(02:56):
calm down and then quickly and to get to your question,
I do think it's a lot about the discourse and
the availability and incentives of social media to exacerbate our
disagreements and to forefront the most angry people as the
most likely to get big audience.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
I will say also as we go to air, they've
found the person that they think did it killed Charlie
Kirk and it's a twenty two year old and there
was all this conspiracy about oh, it's got to be
a professional MASAD agent or whatever, because look at the
shot and how precise that was. And I just think
also right now, with the video games that everybody's playing,
(03:37):
probably a lot of people know how to do this
in a way that they maybe didn't fifteen years ago.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Well yeah, and also he has, apparently, according to what
I see is credible pictures on social media, even as
a young kid, he was around guns.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
Which I gotta say, I don't think is wrong.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
If you successfully and carefully instruct on gun control. And
maybe he was, but then of course a person could
come to believe that the best way to disagree with
someone or to permanently shut them off is through guns.
And that's the trigger point, no pun intended, But that's
the line that we hadn't crossed for so long. Why
(04:14):
do we think we had to cross that? I think
it's a lot of things. The feeling of powerlessness, a real,
real vilification of our enemies. Some of that's going on
post Charlie Kirk murder. I don't want to excuse all
the things that he said. I disagree with, and I'm
never one who say, oh, we shouldn't speak ill of
the dead in a carefully written obituary, and he had
(04:36):
views that I certainly disagree with. But there is also
a lot of vilification, a lot going on now about
what should be a mournful period for all of us.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Well, And when you look at some of the reactions
on social media and on traditional media, a lot of
people pointing out that Charlie Kirk had said that occasional
gun deaths are the price you pay for the Second Amendment.
And then Matthew dow longtime political analysts, said on MSNBC,
Kirk's been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger
figures in this who's constantly sort of pushing this sort
(05:08):
of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups.
And I always go back to hateful thoughts lead to
hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. He was
fired within hours by MSNBC and apologize, what do you
think about that? To the point of what we're talking
about here, which is whether people feel free to speak
their mind, the fact that this happens. Then Matthew Dad
gets fired for saying that.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
Yeah, Matthew Dowd is not a radical. I've had him
on the show if you had him on the show.
I've touched in for yeah, of course, and I can
understand if he had to do that again, not just
because he was fired. I don't know if he was
examining the full weight of his words. I also disagree
with his words to some degree. I mean, he is
Charlie Kirk was not one of the worst. Maybe that
(05:51):
says something about the others, but or the milieu he
was operating in. But to me, given where the Republican
Party is, he's sort of just an average I shouldn't
say just he's for good or ill and avatar essentially
of their ideas. And if we have two parties in America,
which we essentially do, and one of them thinks these things,
(06:14):
the other one can't be motivated to say the way
to stop this idea is best with a bullet. MSNBC's
firing of them. There are business expenses. I don't like
firing people for speech, but it is a strong statement,
and at this moment, strong statements about being so much
more against extremism and rhetoric that is escalatory. It has
(06:39):
merit to put a flag in the sand and say
this will not stand.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
In this moment. You know. I was watching Fox News
this morning, though, and they had a guest on who
immediately said, you know, every single one of the people
that are committing these assassinations and attempts are on the left.
Like if I was watching, well, if they had said
that on MSNBC with the the reverse, wouldn't that be
like just as bad as what they believe, you know, Matthew.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
Desk Yeah, absolutely. And I saw a guest on Fox
News the President of the United States today, when asked
what can we do to lower the temperature or to
get along? I'm paraphrasing the question, which was asked from
a good place. He said, I don't care or I'm
just angry at the left. And so we're in a
situation where the president's words are almost never unifying, and
(07:27):
he is he does what he does, which is to
operate through anger and to provoke his base. And so
we have to I think the rest of us, your listeners,
people who would listen to the show if they know
about it, people who wouldn't, and like Charlie Kirk, have
to to some extent put that aside and say, all right,
we're in a situation where we have the person with
(07:48):
the biggest megaphone, often saying the most escalatory things. And
then what that is the question? Okay, so that is
the ground truth, that is the reality we're operating in.
And then, because it's very tempting to say, well, I'm
not going to give any forgiveness or grace to the
other side. Look at who the other side elected as
(08:10):
it's spokesperson, and I guess the Republicans do that. They'll
pick someone who they vilify as well. All Right, I'm
willing to concede as a person. Mostly he talks to
Democrats on my show that yeah, that is the truth.
But then what do we escalate or do we seek
out means to de escalate this horrible rhetoric.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Let's listen to some of the comments that listeners left
us on this. Here's Anne Marie in Nashville, Tennessee.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
I am not afraid to speak my mind these days.
In fact, I feel like it's my obligation and responsibility.
I am a middle person. I'm always midway between both sides.
I'm very diplomatic, and I have a lot of friends
on the full spectrum politically, and I really feel like
my responsibility to speak out because those that are perhaps
(08:58):
on the right side. They tend to listen to my
voice because they know that I'm not an extremist.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
So interesting Mike an Marie talking about how she feels
a need to speak her mind right now just to
remind people that she's not totally politically aligned with that
we're all on the same side.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Yeah, And if you look at the No King's rally,
which was one of the biggest in years, that was laudable.
No matter what you think of the sentiment, it was
peaceful and it's exactly what the society needs, which is
protest as if nothing else a release valve, or free
expression if nothing else is a release valve. There's so
(09:38):
many lessons where if you try to tamp down on
free expression, either the worst way, through government intervention or
through social sanction, you get a lot of blowback. Blowback
maybe being the theme of all of this in our society.
There are a lot of polls that show, especially on
college campuses, they show different things, but that a lot
of students don't feel comfortable expressing their opinions. Here's one
(10:02):
from a couple of years ago. By party, fifty four
percent of Democratic students, thirty nine of Republican students and
thirty six percent of other students felt comfortable without negative consequences.
These polls would convince us that things are still very,
very oppressive on college campuses. But I also pick up
that there is a lot of perception of perception in
(10:23):
these polls. But then again, I have a son who
for the last two months, he's a freshman at a
college campus, and he says that it was different from
his high school campus. There is a little he's trying
to feel it out, but it's a college campus where
there are some consequences, as he perceives it, maybe more
consequences of speaking his mind than when he was in
(10:44):
high school. And when he was in high school, it
was even a school that made the news.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
For being oppressive about free speech.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Sometimes fairly and unfairly. He was really I should just
say he was beside himself as a as not a
fan of Charlie Kirk at all. And he actually let
me in on some of Charlie Kirk's statements that I
looked up about civil rights that you know, lichus I
wouldn't agree with them at all. So that's where he sits.
But so many people on his college campus were expressing
(11:11):
glee about the murder, and he was very, very upset
by that.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Well, and you know, one of the reasons we did
this show about freedom to speak your mind in the
first place is because I was speaking with a political
science professor at a university in Boston who said that
he used to ask his students to talk about things
in the news at the beginning of class and doesn't
do it anymore because they're also afraid to say anything.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
Yeah, I mean, it's true.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
I do think that that has lessened a bit in
the last five to seven years, but it's still a
phenomenon that we didn't have when we maybe idealize things
from our youth, my youth being a little bit longer.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
Longer ago than your youth.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
On the other hand, in the eighties or nineties, I
went to college in the nineties, the consequences because there
was no social media and there were no prices to
pay in terms of social sanction that could go instantaneous,
the consequences were different. And a lot of people who
frame cancel culture as consequence culture say that's a good thing.
(12:10):
I disagree, but it's a little unfair maybe to the
current realities of today. For someone who's in their fifties,
forties or thirties to say, oh, things were better in
my day, things were a lot different in your day.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
Let's listen to another caller. This is Lindsay from Denver, Colorado.
Speaker 5 (12:26):
It's interesting that one caller said they had to tippo
around language and fear perhaps not getting a job opportunity
because of an offhanded comment about a news headline. Well,
I can say that as a conservative, I definitely feel
the same way. So it's probably along both sides of
(12:46):
the fence that people are feeling very cautious about what
they can and cannot say.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Mike, we heard this from a number of conservatives who
called in who felt that even with Trump in charge,
they also feel like they can't say what they really think.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
Yeah, and that does not surprise me. And I don't know.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
Maybe a liberal in the middle audience would say, oh,
that's because your views are so odious, But I don't
think that's Hey, who knows what individual's views are, But
I don't think that's the phenomenon. I think the phenomenon
is this refraction of a refraction, and people are maybe
businesses are perceiving the worry of online cancelation mobs if
(13:28):
they have the wrong person working for them, and maybe
that perception is incorrect. But it gets to the fact
that we it's very hard to know what the actual
truth is. And when we're just dealing in this hall
of mirrors, people are going to be fearful and they're
going to be cautious. And one way the caution expresses
themselves is to, you know, maybe punish a perceived perception,
(13:52):
a perceived opinion that you think will hurt your business.
It is not a good state of affairs at all.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
What do you mean a hall of mirror?
Speaker 3 (14:01):
Well, if there was knowledge, if there was firm knowledge
of what the marketplace or how the marketplace might react
to a random person who you hires, comments, then a
business would be able to navigate that situation. And if
the answer was it is so clear that once this
gets out it's going to be horrible for us, they
(14:22):
wouldn't hire. But if it was clear that either there's
no way this will get out or people will take
it in stride, then they might hire.
Speaker 1 (14:30):
But we don't know.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
There's so much randomness and uncertainty with how any of
this will be perceived. Who will be able to who
will be able to give it more attention. What transgressions
become firing offenses, and what just get tucked away in
the h who cares file.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Well, and it's not just firing offenses. And we're going
to talk about this. You know, people are afraid to
bring their phones through immigration right now because of what
they might have on there that could be used against them.
There's a lot going on from a government perspective that
has nothing to do with the bottom line. With the
Middle with journalists Mike Pesco, who hosts the daily podcast
The Gist, We'll be right back. Welcome back to a
(15:32):
special edition of The Middle podcast. I'm Jeremy Hobson. This episode,
we're talking about freedom of speech and whether you feel
free to speak your mind. I'm joined by journalists and
hosts of The Gist podcast, Mike Pesca. Mike, we heard
from a caller on the right. Now let's hear from
a caller on the left. This is Hazel and Chapel Hill,
North Carolina.
Speaker 6 (15:50):
I do feel like there's some censorship in the universities.
You know, words can't be used on websites and grant applications.
The University of North Carolina system has shut down the
EI programs. We can't even use the word diversity when
(16:12):
it comes to science for women. It's insane, Mike.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
This, as you know, is because of the backlash led
by Trump and the Republicans against DEI efforts. Now even
having that word diversity in your grant application can get
you denied for federal funding. Why did this response to
DEI goes so far in the opposite direction that it
has become its own kind of cancel.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Culture, right, Well, it's not just that.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
It's the Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions
versus Harvard, which literally did away with with DEI. And
by the way, the other suit that was joined with
the Harvard suit was a University of North Carolina suit.
They sued both the oldest private and oldest public college
in America doing a way where affirmative action was a
popular If you look at polling, most people.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Wanted that scrapped. That was part of it.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
And I think the Supreme Court didn't do what Trump did,
which is to read a political situation to identify a problem,
as I think in this case, if you look at
polling an affirmative action, most people agree with the idea
that the affirmative action and DEI regimes went too far.
And then Trump is a good politician, successfully identifies the problem,
(17:32):
but as a very I will apply here very bad
policymaker has an exacerbation of the problem.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
With his solution. But this is what he wants. So
to correct you.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
Could, on the one hand say, oh, it's a pendulum swinging.
On the other hand, you could more cynically, and I
think more accurately, say, the colleges, by not essentially policing
themselves and by going too far, opened the door for
this wild, intentional overreaction such that you do a control
f search for the word diversity and cancel a grant.
(18:06):
And I think we could all agree that is a
very lazy way to consider a grant application. But that's
where we are. There's this quote it's about immigration that
David Frum says, which is a quote to Democrats. If
you don't create the policy, the fascists will. And I
would apply that way of thinking to all manner of
public policy. So when it comes to the DEI regime,
(18:29):
not the ideal states of the concepts of diversity and inclusion,
but when it came to how DEI was actually implemented.
I would say, if you don't have a reasonable policy,
let's not say the fascist, but your extremist enemies will.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
Right beyond DEI. Though, the Trump administration has also gone
after people for what they've said or written. I think
of John Bolton, the former national security advisor to Trump,
who's been very outspoken against the president. Now there is
an investoration into him from the federal government. There was
the detention of that Tough's University student from Turkey who
had penned an op ed in the student newspaper that
(19:08):
was critical of Tough's university when it comes to Israel
and Gaza, is this administration interested in free speech when
it's at odds with their own political goals.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
No, they're very hypocritical about that. It's about power and
they claim free speech, but over and over again, it's
free speech for me and not for thee. And I
like the fact that you cited the tough student on
oz Turk because she is the epitome of someone who
did nothing wrong. There were other detained students, and you
could debate if the Columbia student had any leanings towards
(19:43):
hamas that's at least a colorable debate. But this poor
tough student co signs an op ed, which is what
we'd want to teach people who are from foreign lands
to come to our country. And all it says is
I agree with the resolution the student Senate passed criticizing
his and from this she's in detention. I mean, she's
out now, and that's ultimately the right goal. But yeah,
(20:05):
to answer your question, of course they have gone overboard
and have committed so many affronts against free speech.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
Is there a way back from that?
Speaker 2 (20:16):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (20:16):
I think you have to win elections, and I hope
that when if there is a corrective to this excess,
it's not just that now, let's get revenge on the
people who are getting revenge on us. Ben Smith, who
is the CEO and editor of Semaphore, had an interview
with the current head of the FCC, who essentially said
I was in the minority as a Republican on the
(20:37):
Federal Communications Commission, and now's our time to punish the excess.
And Ben said, how come it's always that dynamic? Why
isn't it ever? Oh, and we've recognized what the excess
was and we vow to never do that and the
answer is because political incentives don't align to do that.
But somehow, in some way, we have to get someone
who breaks through it maybe gets the country agreeing with them.
(21:01):
Thank god you didn't. We didn't put you in office
to punish our enemies. We put you in office to
make things more normal.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
By the way, Brendan Carr, who you're talking about, the
chairman of the FCC, was a guest on the Middle
a little more than a year ago, I think, before
the election, and he was on because he was extremely
outspoken that TikTok should be banned. And now that he's
the head of the FCC and Trump keeps extending the
(21:29):
waiver to banning TikTok in the United States, I wonder
if we could get him back on again to talk
about that.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Did he seem reasonable back then?
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Yes, he was a very nice man. He was very
reasonably listened to our callers.
Speaker 3 (21:42):
He responded, if you watch I don't know if you
saw that clip with Ben he' that's what he says.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
He said.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
Everyone knows you, says you're this reasonable guy, affable guy,
but when it comes to actually operating in the political arena,
you turn into this extremist. And by the way, that
waiver this isn't on our topic. It's not really a waiver.
It's just a dick tok dictate where Trump says I
don't want to follow it, and no one's holding him,
the Republicans in the House and Senator and holding him
(22:07):
to account. It's just a clear con It is the
clearest constitutional violation no one cares about. I guess we
all want TikTok.
Speaker 1 (22:16):
I mean I don't, but a lot of people do.
And we now not to go too far down this road,
but there are protests going on in Nepal right now
because they took away social media. So it does make
me wonder what would happen if if they actually did
get rid of TikTok in the United States.
Speaker 3 (22:30):
Yeah, and not to go down too far down this path,
but Nepal wanted all these social media companies to register
and TikTok did, right. YouTube didn't, and Instagram and Facebook didn't.
But TikTok was like, yeah, sure, we'll be controlled by
essentially controlled by the government. And those videos of the
protesters standing before a burning parliament building literally taking selvies
(22:51):
after nineteen of them at least nineteen were killed by
government forces.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
Yeah, my god.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
Wow. All right, let's get to another listener. This is
Samantha from Houston.
Speaker 7 (23:01):
I wanted to express personally. I think part of the
reason that people feel so limited in their ability to
express their opinion is because of how limited our opportunities
are as young people for human connection. And so you're
really incentive on to not ruin your much more limited
chances for human connection than people may have had back
(23:23):
in the day where it was very common to be
meeting people all the time in a variety of situations
in the third spaces.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
Well, I'm glad that we get to that. Right after
we talked about TikTok. Now we get to the young
people who don't want to lose their chance at actual
human connection by saying something that's offensive to somebody and
getting into like a political discussion. That's not a problem
that you have, but right, I guess some people do
have that issue.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
Well, let's also note that the intermediation of human connection
by these machines is having a horrible cost, especially on
our young people. I think it first showed up with
people worried about young women and self harm and an
increase in suicide, and now it's pretty clear that young
men are just as affected. And Jonathan Hate, who is
(24:09):
the New York University professor who studies this stuff, he
makes this really interesting point, which is kids, millennials, younger
really actually jen Alfa zuomers, they have half the human
connection that people of your and my and older generations did.
(24:31):
So think about all the times you laughed with a
friend in your teens and just cut that in half,
throw half of them away. And think about all the
fun you had with your friends, pushing them, joking around,
jumping on something, throwing a football, and just throw half
of them away. Does that sound like a beneficial, positive
(24:53):
expression or experience. It's really, it's really frightening, and it
has costs.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
Yeah, I mean, I think if you were to look
back at all the shows we've done over the last
couple of years, like one of the key topics has
been exactly this, like social media addiction, social media and
kids and adults just are we are pack animals and
it is making it so that we can't be with
other people and we spend so much time, all of
(25:22):
us looking at our screens.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Yeah, the dating scene is affected by it. Education.
Speaker 3 (25:30):
Wow, and you know, And the thing about it is
is that I think that it shows that our tools
and our technology have such a greater impact than our politics.
And we pay the most attention to politics, but we
pay attention through our technology. So as humans, as pack
animals and tribal animals, this has pretty much been the
(25:52):
truth through human history, and we get most upset and
most of our attention is paid towards the political and
it's a democracy and we need to pay attention. But
really we are kind of being controlled by our tools
more than we're allowing our tools to help us with
our control of the natural universe.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Yeah, let me ask you one more thing, Mike, because
this does relate to what we're talking about freedom of
speech and kind of the media situation today. You and
I have both, after many years working for big companies,
gone out on our own, you wisely with the podcast
Where the ad Money Is, and me with the radio
show which gives me a wonderful radio audience on over
four hundred NPR stations, but it is much harder to monetize. Frankly,
(26:36):
what is your advice for making independent media work? In
twenty twenty.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
Five, lots of ads for gold, no it's hard. It's
about a connection to the audience. I've been thinking a
lot about credibility and what you and I probably thought
when we were working for NPR about credibility as being
really important and it's thing that you could fritter away.
(27:02):
And I kind of thought of credibility as existing out
there as its own independent thing. But actually I think
I've miss either I misunderstood it, or the world has changed.
Credibility is actually just what your audience, whoever they are,
or what your potential audience wants to hear. And I
(27:25):
know this, and I try to you know, I chafe
against it, and I try to calculate so as not
to get sucked into that. But think about what are
the quote unquote credible institutions, And so many people who
don't like them or don't either hate them or don't
think about them, would not regard them as credible. So
(27:45):
the advice is to, in order to monetize and to
get an audience, strike your audience as credible, but then
don't do the thing where you get sucked in and
captured by the audience. Have this independent definition of credibility
so that you're true to yourself. What I what it'd
(28:05):
be great to say is and then when you are
established as credible, the market will reward you. I do
not believe that, but I believe maybe if you can
have a somewhat monetized audience and credibility as you define it,
your soul will reward you.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
Yeah. Yeah. It reminds me of an old slogan for
a soft rock station many many years ago, and it
was songs you know, by artists you've heard of. And
when I was working on a production of a new
show that they were building for public radio, I said,
I think we should be the opposite of that. I
think that our listeners want to hear new things, not
(28:44):
just stuff that they already know and have heard of.
Speaker 3 (28:47):
My objection to that kind of marketing is they always
talk about songs from the seventies, eighties, nineties, and today,
But today today is that's twenty.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Six years, twenty five years now? What a gap? It
doesn't even get its decade. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (29:01):
Mike pesca longtime journalist and hosts of the daily podcast
That Just Mike, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 3 (29:07):
Thank you, Jeremy for embodying the spirit of more talk
less rock.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
Thanks to you for listening to this episode. It was
produced by Anka Deshler, our intern. This is her Baby.
Our next middle episode will be in your podcast feed
later this week. We'll be talking about what's being lost
in education now in this digital age, like does anyone
know how to write with a pen anymore? And if
you like this podcast, please rate it wherever you get
your podcasts and write a review. Our theme music was
composed by Noah Haidu. I'm Jeremy Hobson and I will
(29:34):
talk to you soon
This is a special edition of The Middle podcast. I'm
Jeremy Hobson. As we record this episode, the nation is
still processing the assassination of the activist Charlie Kirk, just
the latest in a number of assassinations or attempted assassinations
of people in this country, apparently because of their political beliefs.
There was the killing of the Democratic Speaker of the
(00:35):
Minnesota State House, Melissa Hortman, and her husband Mark in June,
the April arson attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's home.
There was the attack on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's
husband in twenty twenty two, the two assassination attempts on
President Trump, the shooting of Republican Congressman Steve Scalise at
a baseball game in twenty seventeen. Of course, former Democratic
(00:57):
Congressman Gaby Giffort's back in twenty eleven Arizona. And the
thing is the entire premise of the show The Middle
is to be able to talk, listen, and disagree in
a civil way, because our democracy only works when we
were able to communicate with our fellow citizens in good faith.
So we did an episode of Our Call in show
a few weeks ago where we asked if you feel
(01:19):
free to speak your mind in our current political and
social climate, and we had Cornell West, the political activist
and Tangle News editor at large Camille Foster on. It
was a great conversation, so much engagement from our listeners
and so much so, like more than one hundred voicemails
after the show, that we're going to continue that conversation
now with some more of your comments and the wisdom
(01:39):
of longtime journalist Mike Pesca, an old friend who hosts
the daily podcast The Gist. Mike, it's great to have
you here.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Oh, thanks for having me again.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
Well, and there are so many aspects of this topic,
but let's start with the one that is front and center.
What is happening in our country that people feel that
they have to turn to violence to silence those that
they disagree with what you think.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Definitely a lot of cross currents. Mental illness and the
access to guns are first and foremost, because even though
there have been assassinations in places without guns like the
UK and Japan, with guns, it intensifies and exacerbates it tenfold.
I would say, I think it's also important to note
(02:21):
that there have been other periods, not too far distant,
periods that have been much angrier and even more violent
than this. So like maybe we think of the sixties
and the assassinations of the Kennedys and MLK.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
But of course the seventies were worse. Right.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
You have an assassination attempt on George Wallace in seventy two,
and then the two attempt at assassinations on Ford and
when they don't work, we consign them to a different category.
But you know, if they had, we'd be talking about
the seventies is the most bloody decade, and then Harvey
Milk and George Mosconi and then Alard k Lowenstein who
was a member of Congress in eighty one Reagan. Things
(02:56):
calm down and then quickly and to get to your question,
I do think it's a lot about the discourse and
the availability and incentives of social media to exacerbate our
disagreements and to forefront the most angry people as the
most likely to get big audience.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
I will say also as we go to air, they've
found the person that they think did it killed Charlie
Kirk and it's a twenty two year old and there
was all this conspiracy about oh, it's got to be
a professional MASAD agent or whatever, because look at the
shot and how precise that was. And I just think
also right now, with the video games that everybody's playing,
(03:37):
probably a lot of people know how to do this
in a way that they maybe didn't fifteen years ago.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Well yeah, and also he has, apparently, according to what
I see is credible pictures on social media, even as
a young kid, he was around guns.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
Which I gotta say, I don't think is wrong.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
If you successfully and carefully instruct on gun control. And
maybe he was, but then of course a person could
come to believe that the best way to disagree with
someone or to permanently shut them off is through guns.
And that's the trigger point, no pun intended, But that's
the line that we hadn't crossed for so long. Why
(04:14):
do we think we had to cross that? I think
it's a lot of things. The feeling of powerlessness, a real,
real vilification of our enemies. Some of that's going on
post Charlie Kirk murder. I don't want to excuse all
the things that he said. I disagree with, and I'm
never one who say, oh, we shouldn't speak ill of
the dead in a carefully written obituary, and he had
(04:36):
views that I certainly disagree with. But there is also
a lot of vilification, a lot going on now about
what should be a mournful period for all of us.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Well, And when you look at some of the reactions
on social media and on traditional media, a lot of
people pointing out that Charlie Kirk had said that occasional
gun deaths are the price you pay for the Second Amendment.
And then Matthew dow longtime political analysts, said on MSNBC,
Kirk's been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger
figures in this who's constantly sort of pushing this sort
(05:08):
of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups.
And I always go back to hateful thoughts lead to
hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. He was
fired within hours by MSNBC and apologize, what do you
think about that? To the point of what we're talking
about here, which is whether people feel free to speak
their mind, the fact that this happens. Then Matthew Dad
gets fired for saying that.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
Yeah, Matthew Dowd is not a radical. I've had him
on the show if you had him on the show.
I've touched in for yeah, of course, and I can
understand if he had to do that again, not just
because he was fired. I don't know if he was
examining the full weight of his words. I also disagree
with his words to some degree. I mean, he is
Charlie Kirk was not one of the worst. Maybe that
(05:51):
says something about the others, but or the milieu he
was operating in. But to me, given where the Republican
Party is, he's sort of just an average I shouldn't
say just he's for good or ill and avatar essentially
of their ideas. And if we have two parties in America,
which we essentially do, and one of them thinks these things,
(06:14):
the other one can't be motivated to say the way
to stop this idea is best with a bullet. MSNBC's
firing of them. There are business expenses. I don't like
firing people for speech, but it is a strong statement,
and at this moment, strong statements about being so much
more against extremism and rhetoric that is escalatory. It has
(06:39):
merit to put a flag in the sand and say
this will not stand.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
In this moment. You know. I was watching Fox News
this morning, though, and they had a guest on who
immediately said, you know, every single one of the people
that are committing these assassinations and attempts are on the left.
Like if I was watching, well, if they had said
that on MSNBC with the the reverse, wouldn't that be
like just as bad as what they believe, you know, Matthew.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
Desk Yeah, absolutely. And I saw a guest on Fox
News the President of the United States today, when asked
what can we do to lower the temperature or to
get along? I'm paraphrasing the question, which was asked from
a good place. He said, I don't care or I'm
just angry at the left. And so we're in a
situation where the president's words are almost never unifying, and
(07:27):
he is he does what he does, which is to
operate through anger and to provoke his base. And so
we have to I think the rest of us, your listeners,
people who would listen to the show if they know
about it, people who wouldn't, and like Charlie Kirk, have
to to some extent put that aside and say, all right,
we're in a situation where we have the person with
(07:48):
the biggest megaphone, often saying the most escalatory things. And
then what that is the question? Okay, so that is
the ground truth, that is the reality we're operating in.
And then, because it's very tempting to say, well, I'm
not going to give any forgiveness or grace to the
other side. Look at who the other side elected as
(08:10):
it's spokesperson, and I guess the Republicans do that. They'll
pick someone who they vilify as well. All Right, I'm
willing to concede as a person. Mostly he talks to
Democrats on my show that yeah, that is the truth.
But then what do we escalate or do we seek
out means to de escalate this horrible rhetoric.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Let's listen to some of the comments that listeners left
us on this. Here's Anne Marie in Nashville, Tennessee.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
I am not afraid to speak my mind these days.
In fact, I feel like it's my obligation and responsibility.
I am a middle person. I'm always midway between both sides.
I'm very diplomatic, and I have a lot of friends
on the full spectrum politically, and I really feel like
my responsibility to speak out because those that are perhaps
(08:58):
on the right side. They tend to listen to my
voice because they know that I'm not an extremist.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
So interesting Mike an Marie talking about how she feels
a need to speak her mind right now just to
remind people that she's not totally politically aligned with that
we're all on the same side.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Yeah, And if you look at the No King's rally,
which was one of the biggest in years, that was laudable.
No matter what you think of the sentiment, it was
peaceful and it's exactly what the society needs, which is
protest as if nothing else a release valve, or free
expression if nothing else is a release valve. There's so
(09:38):
many lessons where if you try to tamp down on
free expression, either the worst way, through government intervention or
through social sanction, you get a lot of blowback. Blowback
maybe being the theme of all of this in our society.
There are a lot of polls that show, especially on
college campuses, they show different things, but that a lot
of students don't feel comfortable expressing their opinions. Here's one
(10:02):
from a couple of years ago. By party, fifty four
percent of Democratic students, thirty nine of Republican students and
thirty six percent of other students felt comfortable without negative consequences.
These polls would convince us that things are still very,
very oppressive on college campuses. But I also pick up
that there is a lot of perception of perception in
(10:23):
these polls. But then again, I have a son who
for the last two months, he's a freshman at a
college campus, and he says that it was different from
his high school campus. There is a little he's trying
to feel it out, but it's a college campus where
there are some consequences, as he perceives it, maybe more
consequences of speaking his mind than when he was in
(10:44):
high school. And when he was in high school, it
was even a school that made the news.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
For being oppressive about free speech.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Sometimes fairly and unfairly. He was really I should just
say he was beside himself as a as not a
fan of Charlie Kirk at all. And he actually let
me in on some of Charlie Kirk's statements that I
looked up about civil rights that you know, lichus I
wouldn't agree with them at all. So that's where he sits.
But so many people on his college campus were expressing
(11:11):
glee about the murder, and he was very, very upset
by that.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Well, and you know, one of the reasons we did
this show about freedom to speak your mind in the
first place is because I was speaking with a political
science professor at a university in Boston who said that
he used to ask his students to talk about things
in the news at the beginning of class and doesn't
do it anymore because they're also afraid to say anything.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
Yeah, I mean, it's true.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
I do think that that has lessened a bit in
the last five to seven years, but it's still a
phenomenon that we didn't have when we maybe idealize things
from our youth, my youth being a little bit longer.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
Longer ago than your youth.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
On the other hand, in the eighties or nineties, I
went to college in the nineties, the consequences because there
was no social media and there were no prices to
pay in terms of social sanction that could go instantaneous,
the consequences were different. And a lot of people who
frame cancel culture as consequence culture say that's a good thing.
(12:10):
I disagree, but it's a little unfair maybe to the
current realities of today. For someone who's in their fifties,
forties or thirties to say, oh, things were better in
my day, things were a lot different in your day.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
Let's listen to another caller. This is Lindsay from Denver, Colorado.
Speaker 5 (12:26):
It's interesting that one caller said they had to tippo
around language and fear perhaps not getting a job opportunity
because of an offhanded comment about a news headline. Well,
I can say that as a conservative, I definitely feel
the same way. So it's probably along both sides of
(12:46):
the fence that people are feeling very cautious about what
they can and cannot say.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Mike, we heard this from a number of conservatives who
called in who felt that even with Trump in charge,
they also feel like they can't say what they really think.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
Yeah, and that does not surprise me. And I don't know.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
Maybe a liberal in the middle audience would say, oh,
that's because your views are so odious, But I don't
think that's Hey, who knows what individual's views are, But
I don't think that's the phenomenon. I think the phenomenon
is this refraction of a refraction, and people are maybe
businesses are perceiving the worry of online cancelation mobs if
(13:28):
they have the wrong person working for them, and maybe
that perception is incorrect. But it gets to the fact
that we it's very hard to know what the actual
truth is. And when we're just dealing in this hall
of mirrors, people are going to be fearful and they're
going to be cautious. And one way the caution expresses
themselves is to, you know, maybe punish a perceived perception,
(13:52):
a perceived opinion that you think will hurt your business.
It is not a good state of affairs at all.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
What do you mean a hall of mirror?
Speaker 3 (14:01):
Well, if there was knowledge, if there was firm knowledge
of what the marketplace or how the marketplace might react
to a random person who you hires, comments, then a
business would be able to navigate that situation. And if
the answer was it is so clear that once this
gets out it's going to be horrible for us, they
(14:22):
wouldn't hire. But if it was clear that either there's
no way this will get out or people will take
it in stride, then they might hire.
Speaker 1 (14:30):
But we don't know.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
There's so much randomness and uncertainty with how any of
this will be perceived. Who will be able to who
will be able to give it more attention. What transgressions
become firing offenses, and what just get tucked away in
the h who cares file.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Well, and it's not just firing offenses. And we're going
to talk about this. You know, people are afraid to
bring their phones through immigration right now because of what
they might have on there that could be used against them.
There's a lot going on from a government perspective that
has nothing to do with the bottom line. With the
Middle with journalists Mike Pesco, who hosts the daily podcast
The Gist, We'll be right back. Welcome back to a
(15:32):
special edition of The Middle podcast. I'm Jeremy Hobson. This episode,
we're talking about freedom of speech and whether you feel
free to speak your mind. I'm joined by journalists and
hosts of The Gist podcast, Mike Pesca. Mike, we heard
from a caller on the right. Now let's hear from
a caller on the left. This is Hazel and Chapel Hill,
North Carolina.
Speaker 6 (15:50):
I do feel like there's some censorship in the universities.
You know, words can't be used on websites and grant applications.
The University of North Carolina system has shut down the
EI programs. We can't even use the word diversity when
(16:12):
it comes to science for women. It's insane, Mike.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
This, as you know, is because of the backlash led
by Trump and the Republicans against DEI efforts. Now even
having that word diversity in your grant application can get
you denied for federal funding. Why did this response to
DEI goes so far in the opposite direction that it
has become its own kind of cancel.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Culture, right, Well, it's not just that.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
It's the Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions
versus Harvard, which literally did away with with DEI. And
by the way, the other suit that was joined with
the Harvard suit was a University of North Carolina suit.
They sued both the oldest private and oldest public college
in America doing a way where affirmative action was a
popular If you look at polling, most people.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Wanted that scrapped. That was part of it.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
And I think the Supreme Court didn't do what Trump did,
which is to read a political situation to identify a problem,
as I think in this case, if you look at
polling an affirmative action, most people agree with the idea
that the affirmative action and DEI regimes went too far.
And then Trump is a good politician, successfully identifies the problem,
(17:32):
but as a very I will apply here very bad
policymaker has an exacerbation of the problem.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
With his solution. But this is what he wants. So
to correct you.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
Could, on the one hand say, oh, it's a pendulum swinging.
On the other hand, you could more cynically, and I
think more accurately, say, the colleges, by not essentially policing
themselves and by going too far, opened the door for
this wild, intentional overreaction such that you do a control
f search for the word diversity and cancel a grant.
(18:06):
And I think we could all agree that is a
very lazy way to consider a grant application. But that's
where we are. There's this quote it's about immigration that
David Frum says, which is a quote to Democrats. If
you don't create the policy, the fascists will. And I
would apply that way of thinking to all manner of
public policy. So when it comes to the DEI regime,
(18:29):
not the ideal states of the concepts of diversity and inclusion,
but when it came to how DEI was actually implemented.
I would say, if you don't have a reasonable policy,
let's not say the fascist, but your extremist enemies will.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
Right beyond DEI. Though, the Trump administration has also gone
after people for what they've said or written. I think
of John Bolton, the former national security advisor to Trump,
who's been very outspoken against the president. Now there is
an investoration into him from the federal government. There was
the detention of that Tough's University student from Turkey who
had penned an op ed in the student newspaper that
(19:08):
was critical of Tough's university when it comes to Israel
and Gaza, is this administration interested in free speech when
it's at odds with their own political goals.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
No, they're very hypocritical about that. It's about power and
they claim free speech, but over and over again, it's
free speech for me and not for thee. And I
like the fact that you cited the tough student on
oz Turk because she is the epitome of someone who
did nothing wrong. There were other detained students, and you
could debate if the Columbia student had any leanings towards
(19:43):
hamas that's at least a colorable debate. But this poor
tough student co signs an op ed, which is what
we'd want to teach people who are from foreign lands
to come to our country. And all it says is
I agree with the resolution the student Senate passed criticizing
his and from this she's in detention. I mean, she's
out now, and that's ultimately the right goal. But yeah,
(20:05):
to answer your question, of course they have gone overboard
and have committed so many affronts against free speech.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
Is there a way back from that?
Speaker 2 (20:16):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (20:16):
I think you have to win elections, and I hope
that when if there is a corrective to this excess,
it's not just that now, let's get revenge on the
people who are getting revenge on us. Ben Smith, who
is the CEO and editor of Semaphore, had an interview
with the current head of the FCC, who essentially said
I was in the minority as a Republican on the
(20:37):
Federal Communications Commission, and now's our time to punish the excess.
And Ben said, how come it's always that dynamic? Why
isn't it ever? Oh, and we've recognized what the excess
was and we vow to never do that and the
answer is because political incentives don't align to do that.
But somehow, in some way, we have to get someone
who breaks through it maybe gets the country agreeing with them.
(21:01):
Thank god you didn't. We didn't put you in office
to punish our enemies. We put you in office to
make things more normal.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
By the way, Brendan Carr, who you're talking about, the
chairman of the FCC, was a guest on the Middle
a little more than a year ago, I think, before
the election, and he was on because he was extremely
outspoken that TikTok should be banned. And now that he's
the head of the FCC and Trump keeps extending the
(21:29):
waiver to banning TikTok in the United States, I wonder
if we could get him back on again to talk
about that.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Did he seem reasonable back then?
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Yes, he was a very nice man. He was very
reasonably listened to our callers.
Speaker 3 (21:42):
He responded, if you watch I don't know if you
saw that clip with Ben he' that's what he says.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
He said.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
Everyone knows you, says you're this reasonable guy, affable guy,
but when it comes to actually operating in the political arena,
you turn into this extremist. And by the way, that
waiver this isn't on our topic. It's not really a waiver.
It's just a dick tok dictate where Trump says I
don't want to follow it, and no one's holding him,
the Republicans in the House and Senator and holding him
(22:07):
to account. It's just a clear con It is the
clearest constitutional violation no one cares about. I guess we
all want TikTok.
Speaker 1 (22:16):
I mean I don't, but a lot of people do.
And we now not to go too far down this road,
but there are protests going on in Nepal right now
because they took away social media. So it does make
me wonder what would happen if if they actually did
get rid of TikTok in the United States.
Speaker 3 (22:30):
Yeah, and not to go down too far down this path,
but Nepal wanted all these social media companies to register
and TikTok did, right. YouTube didn't, and Instagram and Facebook didn't.
But TikTok was like, yeah, sure, we'll be controlled by
essentially controlled by the government. And those videos of the
protesters standing before a burning parliament building literally taking selvies
(22:51):
after nineteen of them at least nineteen were killed by
government forces.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
Yeah, my god.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
Wow. All right, let's get to another listener. This is
Samantha from Houston.
Speaker 7 (23:01):
I wanted to express personally. I think part of the
reason that people feel so limited in their ability to
express their opinion is because of how limited our opportunities
are as young people for human connection. And so you're
really incentive on to not ruin your much more limited
chances for human connection than people may have had back
(23:23):
in the day where it was very common to be
meeting people all the time in a variety of situations
in the third spaces.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
Well, I'm glad that we get to that. Right after
we talked about TikTok. Now we get to the young
people who don't want to lose their chance at actual
human connection by saying something that's offensive to somebody and
getting into like a political discussion. That's not a problem
that you have, but right, I guess some people do
have that issue.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
Well, let's also note that the intermediation of human connection
by these machines is having a horrible cost, especially on
our young people. I think it first showed up with
people worried about young women and self harm and an
increase in suicide, and now it's pretty clear that young
men are just as affected. And Jonathan Hate, who is
(24:09):
the New York University professor who studies this stuff, he
makes this really interesting point, which is kids, millennials, younger
really actually jen Alfa zuomers, they have half the human
connection that people of your and my and older generations did.
(24:31):
So think about all the times you laughed with a
friend in your teens and just cut that in half,
throw half of them away. And think about all the
fun you had with your friends, pushing them, joking around,
jumping on something, throwing a football, and just throw half
of them away. Does that sound like a beneficial, positive
(24:53):
expression or experience. It's really, it's really frightening, and it
has costs.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
Yeah, I mean, I think if you were to look
back at all the shows we've done over the last
couple of years, like one of the key topics has
been exactly this, like social media addiction, social media and
kids and adults just are we are pack animals and
it is making it so that we can't be with
other people and we spend so much time, all of
(25:22):
us looking at our screens.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Yeah, the dating scene is affected by it. Education.
Speaker 3 (25:30):
Wow, and you know, And the thing about it is
is that I think that it shows that our tools
and our technology have such a greater impact than our politics.
And we pay the most attention to politics, but we
pay attention through our technology. So as humans, as pack
animals and tribal animals, this has pretty much been the
(25:52):
truth through human history, and we get most upset and
most of our attention is paid towards the political and
it's a democracy and we need to pay attention. But
really we are kind of being controlled by our tools
more than we're allowing our tools to help us with
our control of the natural universe.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Yeah, let me ask you one more thing, Mike, because
this does relate to what we're talking about freedom of
speech and kind of the media situation today. You and
I have both, after many years working for big companies,
gone out on our own, you wisely with the podcast
Where the ad Money Is, and me with the radio
show which gives me a wonderful radio audience on over
four hundred NPR stations, but it is much harder to monetize. Frankly,
(26:36):
what is your advice for making independent media work? In
twenty twenty.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
Five, lots of ads for gold, no it's hard. It's
about a connection to the audience. I've been thinking a
lot about credibility and what you and I probably thought
when we were working for NPR about credibility as being
really important and it's thing that you could fritter away.
(27:02):
And I kind of thought of credibility as existing out
there as its own independent thing. But actually I think
I've miss either I misunderstood it, or the world has changed.
Credibility is actually just what your audience, whoever they are,
or what your potential audience wants to hear. And I
(27:25):
know this, and I try to you know, I chafe
against it, and I try to calculate so as not
to get sucked into that. But think about what are
the quote unquote credible institutions, And so many people who
don't like them or don't either hate them or don't
think about them, would not regard them as credible. So
(27:45):
the advice is to, in order to monetize and to
get an audience, strike your audience as credible, but then
don't do the thing where you get sucked in and
captured by the audience. Have this independent definition of credibility
so that you're true to yourself. What I what it'd
(28:05):
be great to say is and then when you are
established as credible, the market will reward you. I do
not believe that, but I believe maybe if you can
have a somewhat monetized audience and credibility as you define it,
your soul will reward you.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
Yeah. Yeah. It reminds me of an old slogan for
a soft rock station many many years ago, and it
was songs you know, by artists you've heard of. And
when I was working on a production of a new
show that they were building for public radio, I said,
I think we should be the opposite of that. I
think that our listeners want to hear new things, not
(28:44):
just stuff that they already know and have heard of.
Speaker 3 (28:47):
My objection to that kind of marketing is they always
talk about songs from the seventies, eighties, nineties, and today,
But today today is that's twenty.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Six years, twenty five years now? What a gap? It
doesn't even get its decade. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (29:01):
Mike pesca longtime journalist and hosts of the daily podcast
That Just Mike, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 3 (29:07):
Thank you, Jeremy for embodying the spirit of more talk
less rock.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
Thanks to you for listening to this episode. It was
produced by Anka Deshler, our intern. This is her Baby.
Our next middle episode will be in your podcast feed
later this week. We'll be talking about what's being lost
in education now in this digital age, like does anyone
know how to write with a pen anymore? And if
you like this podcast, please rate it wherever you get
your podcasts and write a review. Our theme music was
composed by Noah Haidu. I'm Jeremy Hobson and I will
(29:34):
talk to you soon
Host
Jeremy Hobson
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.